User talk:Mark Z. Jacobson

Mark Z. Jacobson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Mark Z. Jacobson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Z. Jacobson

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but it appears you have written or added to an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is strongly discouraged – see our guideline on writing autobiographies. If you create such an article, it may be deleted. If what you have done in life is genuinely notable and can be verified according to our policy for articles about living people, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later (see Wikipedians with articles). If you wish to add to an existing article about yourself, please propose the changes on its talk page. Please understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a personal web space or social networking site. If your article has already been deleted, please see: Why was my page deleted?, and if you feel the deletion was an error, please discuss it with the deleting administrator. Thank you.

Conflict of Interest

Hello, Mark Z. Jacobson. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Hi User:Mark_Z._Jacobson please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COI_editing -- Sjschen (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Editing conduct

You have already been informed about your COI editing on Mark_Z._Jacobson. You have also been requested to participate in discussions on Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson before editing due to this COI status. However you have chosen to ignore this request by reverting and undoing edits calling them "corrections", pushing things toward an edit war. If you do not engage in discussions before future edits to the page in question, we will have to seek Administrators assistance and oversight. We will discuss the revision date and time to rollback on the page's discussions before proceeding with any further edits. I invite you to join us there. -- Sjschen (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson My COI is fully disclosed. Sjschen (talk) Your edits were undone because they were, in my opinion, unbalanced, misleading, and inaccurate. In my opinion, they violated the rules for a biography of a living person, which requires balance and require that the statements are not an attack. For example, you claimed the articles you cited represented the belief of the academic and environmental communities without any proof and when only a tiny number of people compared with the sizes of the communities were quoted in these articles. You further citied an article by an ardent nuclear activist who has a self interest in the discussion, hardly a balanced source, as well as another you clearly wrote the article as an attack article rather than as a balanced article. You also cited two articles from the same news outlet to bolster your claim. You further claimed that our studies relied on increasing hydropower, which is false, as our studies for the 48 contiguous states and 139 countries rely on zero increase in hydropower dams or annual average output. An independent editor has subsequently edited both our updates, and I think those edits are reasonable so have no plans to edit those further unless they are modified in an inaccurate or unbalanced way. Just because someone has a COI does not mean they have not been balanced. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have finally decided to respond on the talk pages instead of reverting and editing with COI. While I agree that just because someone has a COI does not mean they have not been balanced, I am less in agreement in the case of you edits. Your accusations that my edits are attacks are rather outrageous when I am simply aggregating information and articles from news sources and summarizing their views. Your response above should really be part of the discussion in Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson and will be duplicated there where the conversation can be monitored more transparently. -- Sjschen (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guy (Help!) 08:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This is following a review of the numerous warnings above, your obvious failure to adhere to community norms in respect of conflicted edits, your use of primary and affiliated sources to assert your side of a controversy as if it were absolute fact, and the promotional tone of many of your edits. Sorry it has to be like that, but I am afraid you have failed to take quite a lot of hints by now.

Note that if there are demonstrable factual inaccuracies in the article, you should use the {{helpme}} template to request changes. Any requests should be specific - "change X to Y based on Z source". Please do not misrepresent matters of interpretation as inaccuracies. Be clear on whether something is inaccurate, or whether you merely challenge the interpretation or form of words. Wikipedia editors are much more likely to help if you are clear on the difference between fact and opinion. Sources should be reliable, independent and secondary. You may not rebut third party commentary by reference to your own publications or statements. That is not how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia's approach to biographies is conservative but we do not guarantee flattering coverage, and we do not offer any right of veto over content. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mark Z. Jacobson (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Wikipedia requires that editors not be biased in what they write and not attack subjects of a biography. By attack, I take this to mean to provide lopsided views and 'citations' for the purpose of disparaging the point of view of the subject and/or the character of the subject himself or herself. In the present case, one editor, Sjschen first wrote a lopsided analysis of a lawsuit on my biography at the very top that was not only misleading and inaccurate but clearly had the intention to disparage my point of view and my character in my opinion. Because of the immediate damage to my reputation, I edited that editors work, providing balancing citations and other edits. It is not sufficient to say that I need to post my disagreements on a talk page then wait 2-4 days while the damaging information is read by thousands of people before it is corrected. The biased and effectively defamatory information needs to be removed immediately, and I edited it in a way that I think most people would think is fair and reasonable. In fact, the next editor maintained my citations demonstrating the reasonableness of my edits. Nevertheless, the editor Sjschen filed a complaint against me, calling me a COI editor (which is true) but also demanding I not make changes on my own bio and instead allow him and other editors to make changes and wait for multiple days before they are corrected. This might seem like normal procedure, except that Sjschen turned out to be a staunch nuclear advocate as indicated by his twitter site, where he admits he is an Ecomodernist and posted a similar attack tweet as he did on my bio (see Talk page for the biography). As such, he had a staunch COI without declaring it in my opinion and was allowed to edit my site and did edit my site. Another editor, Boundarylayer, then came in to help. This editor did a fairly good job of balancing edits. I have no issues with this editor. Everything had calmed down and the bio was reasonably okay until a new editor, 185.51.72.120, jumped in on 12/5/17 and engaged in a full-on lopsided attack, replete with misinformation, one-sided edits, misleading quotes, and misleading references, many from nuclear advocate web sites. This information was available immediately to thousands of people reading the site. It has no place in a biography. To reduce damage to my reputation, immediate corrections were needed. Clearly, there is a problem with Wikipedia when defamation is allowed on a personal biography even for 1 hour. So, although I am most familiar with the facts surrounding my own biography and I have made a good faith attempt to edit - I am certainly not perfect and others can help balance what I say -- it seems entirely unreasonable that nuclear advocates can influence my web site and I am blocked from both the site and the talk page. The result is that it is much more difficult to correct errors and provide accurate, balancing information to some of the advocates who have been editing my site. Just to give you an idea of some of the problems that still exist with the site: 1) Bias and factual inaccuracy: "demanding $10 million in damages for defamation.[66] News reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit,[67][68][69]" (1) It is not a "demand" but a "request" to the court" Why would someone lie by using the word "demand" when it does not appear in the lawsuit. The words are, "respectful request to this Court." (2) The damages requested are not only for defamation but also for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. (3) Several academics and news articles have supported the lawsuit (e.g., Shamoo, the Editor-in-Chief of "Accountability in Research" as previously referenced from the Nature News article), as well as these articles http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denying-the-truth-doesnt-change-the-facts_us_5a20ef21e4b05072e8b567da and some have been balanced http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/energy-green/sd-fi-jacobson-lawsuit-20171204-story.html http://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/nov/30/climate-paper-center-scientist-versus-scientist-le/ http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/39247/ Why was the balancing information removed today? The lawsuit is currently portrayed inaccurately and biased on my biography. 2) Bias. Right now, a quote from David Victor is provided stating, "When it was 'obviously incorrect," but the biography fails to provide the response immediately after this quote, which is published and located in the abstract of http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/PNASReplyClack.pdf which states, "The premise and all error claims by Clack et al. (1) in PNAS, about Jacobson et al.’s (2) report, are demon- strably false. We reaffirm Jacobson et al.’s conclusions." By leaving Victor's quote hanging, the biography appears substantially imbalanced. 3) A lot of weight is given to Hansen's comment about French nuclear reactors. However, the discussion countering this argument was removed along with any semblance of even-handedness. First, the "15 year period" is misleading. That is only the construction time, and nowhere in the quote is this clear, whereas in the previous version that was erased, it was made clear. Second, the "paper" cited where Hansen says this was not a research article but a reply to a commentary. Nowhere does it state that the 7 authors (including Jacobson) who wrote the commentary all disagreed with Hansen and agreed with Jacobson that the planning to operation time is 10-19 years, as they put a table in the commentary itself with this information. Third, even the 15 year number is within 10-19 years, so why is that number being used to contradict the 10-19 years?. In sum, it seems there needs to be more explanation and more balance against Hansen's number. I previously provided some and even gave examples from Wikipedia's own pages, but it was removed. In sum, it seems very unjust that the person who knows the most about the subject of this biography is excluded, whereas at least two nuclear advocates who have shown clear bias in their comments are allowed to roam free on the web site. I would request Sjschen and 185.51.72.120 to be permanently blocked from my biography and it to be monitored for other activity by unbalanced advocates. I propose to at least allow me access to the Talk site for the article, where I can easily request changes to text that has been added to the Article itself. If after a month, things are working out well, I would request readmission to the main site although I will hopefully never need to edit the site if no more massive attacks occur. Thank you for considering this request. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC) One more thing. The fact that the intro section of my bio contains 15 lines and 7 lines are devoted to a recent action (again falsely claiming a "demand" for 10 mil) and only 8 lines are devoted to the rest of my life seems ridiculously lopsided and an effort to distract from the contributions I have made to science throughout the last 28 years. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC) I have just found that another editor JzG has removed all pertinent references pertaining to my work on black carbon climate effects. This editor also removed my list of awards, a list first initiated by another editor. The result is more distortion of the biography Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have looked at your editing history, and what I have seen differs in numerous respects from what you have described. I am willing to believe that in good faith you believe that what you have said above is true, but if so then this is a very good example of the main reason why Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest discourages editing about oneself, namely that it can be very difficult to stand back and see writing about oneself from a neutral, detached point of view. Far from only editing to correct inaccuracies, as you have suggested, you have added extensive content which has been clearly and unambiguously favourable to yourself, and have removed content unfavourable to yourself, even though it clearly does represent views which have significant coverage in reliable sources. Contrary to what you evidently think, reporting criticisms of you which people have made and which are reported in reliable sources does not constitute "attacking" you in the sense disallowed by Wikipedia policy (nor in any other sense that I can think of). On the other hand, attempting to suppress all mention of such criticisms does constitute editing to promote a point of view, which is prohibited by Wikipedia policy. It is perfectly clear from what you have said, both in this unblock request and in other comments on this page, that you wish to be unblocked not because you wish to change how you edit, but because you wish to be able to continue the activity which led to the block, namely editing to make sure that Wikipedia's coverage of yourself is in line with your own views. You are not going to be unblocked for that purpose. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Response to Decline -----------------------

Thank you JamesBWatson for your reply.

To start with, your claim that I have attempted to "suppress all mention of such criticisms" is not accurate, as shown here. It is nice that Wikipedia saves different versions of edits to prove this. Here, for example, is a series of four edits by Sjschen and myself followed by the final version by BoundaryLayer:

November 10, 2017 by Sjschen: Jacobson's lawsuit has been met with condemnation from the energy, climate, and environment science communities.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

November 19, 2017 by Mark Z. Jacobson: Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and and violation of journal polices. It specifically "does not seek to litigate science." [5] Jacobson's lawsuit has been met with support [6] [7] [8] and criticism [9][10][11]

November 20, 2017 by Sjschen: Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and violation of journal polices, and "does not seek to litigate science."[6] Jacobson's lawsuit against his scientific critics has been met with some support [8] amid condemnation from the energy, climate, and environment science communities.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

November 20, 2017 by Mark Z. Jacobson: Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and violation of journal polices, and "does not seek to litigate science."[5] While some news reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit[6][7][8], one report has pointed out, "Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation."[9] An academic, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Accountability in Research, has further commented that he thinks "scientists should be able to sue if they feel that a paper is 'reckless' or 'malicious' and that the Clack paper "was not written as if it was part of a scientific dialogue."[4]

November 21, 2017 final version by BoundaryLayer: Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and violation of journal polices, and "does not seek to litigate science."[5] While most all news reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit,[91][92][93] one blog piece has suggested that, "Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation."[94] Adil Shamoo, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Accountability in Research, has commented that "scientists should be able to sue if they feel that a paper is 'reckless' or 'malicious' and that the Clack paper "was not written as if it was part of a scientific dialogue."[4]

As clearly illustrated above, Sjschen's original edits were one-sided, and my edits provided the balance that is required on issues of views or opinions under Wikipedia's "reliable independent secondary source" policy, and BoundaryLayer adopted most of my wording, not Sjschen's original lopsided wording. Wikipedia's policy states,

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

The fact that BoundaryLayer maintained most of my edits demonstrates that these edits were reasonable and not an effort to "suppress all mention of such criticisms" as you incorrectly state.

Similarly, up until my comments/changes on 185.51.72.120/22, everything I wrote was reviewed and edited by BoundaryLayer among other editors.

When 185.51.72.120/22 started editing (the most recent edits), I was entitled, under Wikipedia policy, to eliminate vandalism, such as

December 5, 2017 by 185.51.72.120 "In a discussion between Jesse Jenkins, a PhD student at MIT studying decarbonization pathways and Jacobson, that was conducted on twitter in 2016, Jenkins pointed out that nuclear energy has scaled faster and therefore offseted more carbon than the technologies advocated by Jacobson, of WWS, Jenkins also pointed out that the global-decarbonization plans that include a contribution from nuclear energy work out cheaper and explained how Jacobson's plan would be the most difficult to achieve. Jacobson soon blocked Jenkins."

and other similar one-sided harrassing posts.

If you want to make a claim about something I did that was unreasonable (as opposed to I was just unaware of some rule, such as about using primary sources), please be specific, and let's discuss it factually. Please don't just make claims that are clearly contradicted by Wikipedia's very detailed version saving system.

Again, I request a reversal. Please also note that the last thing I want to do is spend more time on Wikipedia editing my biography. I do recognize the need for balance and also the need for accuracy. Obviously, I will see things one way so it helps to have other reasonable editors counter that. But equally obviously, I am able to provide factual information that few other people have at their fingertips, so there is a clear benefit of me being able to edit and be edited as well. It is not an issue of making me look good. It is an issue of being accurate.

Thank you. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Don't know what is happening here, but

If you are the subject of an article and have a problem with its content, you might want to Contact OTRS. The Foundation office may be better able to help you, particularly if you e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Relationship_between_the_subject,_the_article,_and_Wikipedia might have helpful information. Judging by prior content on the page, You might want to read about WP:own and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Hope this helps. Sorry for the trouble. I hope it can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

JzG's note summarizes the problem from the community's viewpoint. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim Yes, I see those, but it doesn't address the fact I was correcting clear vandalism and other violations of a biography for a living persons policy, which I am entitled to do as stated under Wikipedia:Autobiography 'Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.' It focuses on some of my inexperienced edits, many of which were there from awhile ago. In addition, many of the edits JzG erased were not even mine. He ignored the edits of those vandalizing and attacking my point of view and character, focusing on blocking me instead of editors causing the bulk of the problem. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It is helpful. Based on the Wikipedia:Autobiography site, it states that 'Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy.' As described in my requests above, this is exactly what I was doing in the last month, removing vandalism on my own biography page and correcting violations. Any new material I added was to counter the bias by other COI editors or clarify the existing record. The editors commenting on my COI editing provided misinformation about what I was allowed and not allowed to do. I was clearly allowed to edit my biography to eliminate vandalism and correct violations. Other editors had no right to prohibit this. They then blocked me based without even them acknowledging I have a right to prevent vandalism and without acknowledging the notes I made on my edits indicating why I was making these corrections. Because my correcting vandalism is allowable based on Wikipedia's own rule page, it seems the blocking was not a just remedy, and I request all blocks to be removed." Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not put every additional comment and every reply in a new unblock request - only one unblock request is needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I read the article and your edits. No, you were not merely removing errors. You were inserting spin, promotional copy, making claims to priority citing only the fact of publication and so on. A thing does not become an error simply because you disagree with it. You are suing scientists for $10m because you disagree with their presentation of your work, and you seem to be adopting the same approach here, of asserting that any interpretation other than yours is false and defamatory. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you are so biased that you should not be editing my biography. You are misrepresenting the lawsuit, you appear to be protecting nuclear advocates who vandalized my biography including one who has an obvious conflict of interest and a second from a hidden IP address with obvious vandalism posts. You complain about the lawsuit, yet what are you doing? Stifling speech so you can rewrite history in a misleading way, omitting key facts and spinning the lawsuit to portray it inaccurately? You yourself appear to have vandalized my biography by removing factual, correct, and relevant content for a biography, which includes citations to highly cited papers (e.g., the Nature 2001, for one) and to awards, which are common in many biographies (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Sherwood_Rowland#Awards_and_honors). You misled by changing the word "requesting" to "demanding" 10m when the public lawsuit itself uses the word "request" and you mislead above by claiming that the suit is based on disagreement of presentation rather than alleged errors of fact. You removed citations to news articles that oppose your misinformation about the lawsuit. If you have a disagreement about priority, prove it - don't just erase something you know nothing about. If you don't think the BC discovery is correct, what were the Henry G. Houghton Award for “significant contributions to modeling aerosol chemistry and to understanding the role of soot and other carbon particles on climate" and the American Geophysical Union Ascent Award for “his dominating role in the development of models to identify the role of black carbon in climate change” https://atmospheres.agu.org/awards/ascent-award/ for? If you think I've spinned too much, fine, refine the words, don't erase factual information to rewrite history. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Biased? Based on what? I have never even heard of you before. My changes were based solely on the content itself, following standard Wikipedia practice of preferring reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. If your changes are based solely on content, can you please answer the following questions?

1) Why do you state that a reason for your blocking me is that I "have not engaged at all" at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_Z._Jacobson

when the record shows significant engagement at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson&action=history

To me, it seems that you have not read the talk page for my biography at all, yet blocked me from it, so you may not be aware why I have been editing in the last few weeks.

2) Why do you block me from the talk page of my biography? You know very well that allowing me to discuss issues on the talk page does not affect the biography itself, so there is no logical reason to prevent me from providing comments or information on the talk page except to stifle speech and prevent any sort of balance from the person who knows the subject 100 times more than you, as you admit.

3) You claim that your "changes are based solely on the content itself" and point to Wikipedia's "reliable independent secondary source" page. However, that page proves without a doubt that your changes DO NOT FOLLOW Wikipedia policy. Specifically, that page states,

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)."

Yet, for example, at the very end of the current version of the article, the text currently states,

"This 2017 critique resulted in Jacobson filing a lawsuit against the peer-reviewed scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the principal author of the paper, demanding $10 million in damages for defamation.[66] News reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit,[67][68][69]"

and YOU erased the entire "minority view," that had been approved by another editor, BoundaryLayer:

"This 2017 critique resulted in Jacobson filing a lawsuit against the peer-reviewed scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and the principle author of the paper, requesting $10 million in damages for defamation.[96] Jacobson's attorney states that the "lawsuit concerns remedying falsification of material fact" and violation of journal polices, and "does not seek to litigate science."[5] While most all news reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit,[97][98][99] one blog piece has suggested that, "Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation."[100] Adil Shamoo, the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, Accountability in Research, has commented that "scientists should be able to sue if they feel that a paper is 'reckless' or 'malicious' and that the Clack paper "was not written as if it was part of a scientific dialogue."[4]"

Please tell my how your removal of the "significant minority view" that is required in a balanced Wikipedia article when you erased it completely? Also, please tell me why you changed the word "requested," which is factually correct and is the word used in the actual complaint, to "demanded," which is factually false and does not exist in the actual complaint. If you wonder why someone might think you are biased is because you have provided factually false, defamatory information and have so far not corrected it even though you have been informed about it.

4) The first warning I was given about being blocked was by sjschen. As stated, he is an admitted nuclear advocate who has a COI based on Wikipedia's definition (see the talk page of my biography). The fact that you claimed in your reason to block me that I was "repeatedly warned" yet did not admit that the only person who warned me previously had a COI as a nuclear advocate and a resulting self interest in having me booted from editing suggests that you paid no attention to my concerns. Call it whatever you will, this is really bad.

5) Please look carefully at the my last 5 edits on the biography page and of all the edits of 185.51.72.120 . Are you telling me this person did not vandalize my page with one-sided edits in favor of nuclear advocacy and citing nuclear advocates and tweets and positions that were one sided. I demand that you show me the balancing statements and citations this person made as he/she is supposed to do. I demand you show how the following twitter discussion belongs on my biography at all:

"In a discussion between Jesse Jenkins, a PhD student at MIT studying decarbonization pathways and Jacobson, that was conducted on twitter in 2016, Jenkins pointed out that nuclear energy has scaled faster and therefore offseted more carbon than the technologies advocated by Jacobson, of WWS, Jenkins also pointed out that the global-decarbonization plans that include a contribution from nuclear energy work out cheaper and explained how Jacobson's plan would be the most difficult to achieve. Jacobson soon blocked Jenkins."

The fact that you BLOCKED me because I erased the vandalism above, which I am entitled to do, is completely inappropriate. Please explain yourself clearly. It is okay to admit a mistake when you have made it. Please restore my privileges and block the real culprits, sjschen and 185.51.72.120 Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I belive that, unfortunatly, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what vandalism is and is not, as well as a strong sense of ownership regarding your article. "The article does not portray me in the way that I belive it should", which is the takeaway I get from the walls of text above, =/= "vandalism". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No, The Bushranger I understand completely what vandalism is. Wikipedia defines vandalism as "vandalism is the act of editing the project in a malicious manner that is intentionally disruptive. Vandalism includes the addition, removal, or other modification of the text or other material that is either humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, or that is an offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading nature." This, for example, is vandalism, which I removed, yet I was blocked for it:

"In a discussion between Jesse Jenkins, a PhD student at MIT studying decarbonization pathways and Jacobson, that was conducted on twitter in 2016, Jenkins pointed out that nuclear energy has scaled faster and therefore offseted more carbon than the technologies advocated by Jacobson, of WWS, Jenkins also pointed out that the global-decarbonization plans that include a contribution from nuclear energy work out cheaper and explained how Jacobson's plan would be the most difficult to achieve. Jacobson soon blocked Jenkins."

It is a complete joke that I was blocked for removing this and similar harassment from my web site, as I am ENTITLED to do under Wikipedia policy, and I have no respect for anyone who thinks this should be in a biography. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

...actually, that proves my point, as that is not vandalism. It may not be suitable for a BLP, but it is not vandalism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Having looked into this "Jesse Jenkins", the "PhD student at MIT with which Jacobson had a discussion via twitter, a discussion which ended, less than amicably", this particular Jesse Jenkins appears to be the co-author of a meta-analysis paper that appraised a number of global-decarbonization plans. The Loftus et.al paper lists Jenkins as co-author. Small world. Here it is titled: A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility? 2014 Climate Change

So while I normally think twitter discussions are trivia, a dispute with an academic on scientific matters, that ended less than amicably, is notable. I hope you can appreciate that Jacobson?

However in saying that, I do agree with Jacobson that the wording was not particularly encyclopedic. In that respect, all editors involved do need to write less sensationally. Though I would not exactly classify this as "Harassment" nor do I find it very encouraging that Jacobson was clearly aware of who this MIT student Jesse Jenkins was, yet chose to not disclose that but instead simply removed all mention to him and then has now proclaimed that: "I demand you show how the following twitter discussion belongs on my biography at all".

All this proves, Boundarylayer is that you did not disclose that Jesse Jenkins has a conflict of interest, just as Sjschen does, in everything he says and writes about my work, because he been working and presumably taking a salary for years at the Breakthrough Institute https://thebreakthrough.org/people/profile/Jesse-Jenkins, a nuclear advocacy group. I do not need to justify that this post was vandalism and harassment and one sided, which itself is a violation of Wikipedia policy for a Biography. You can use all the tortured logic you want. The only question is not what you or I or other Wikipedia editors think but whether reasonable people in the public think that posting harassment and lopsided, unbalanced comments such as this on a biography is reasonable. It is not, so please don't try to justify it. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Other changes, perhaps far more supportive of the ban, that seem completely unbalanced include changing the sourcing and statements made by Burton Richter, from Jacobson's analysis contained ""...too much editorializing about accident potential at Diablo Canyon which makes the paper sound a bit like an anti-nuclear piece instead of the very good analysis that it is..." to instead merely present the following - "It is a first rate job"...good idea". When Richter, in fact, wrote both statements.

Thank you Boundarylayer, you just proved that 185.51.72.120 altered a quotation, and the impact of this is to cause damage to my reputation. You, in turn, falsely state what 185.51.72.120 said to justify banning me as an editor. Specifically, you claimed that 185.51.72.120 made the statement and I changed the statement "...too much editorializing about accident potential at Diablo Canyon which makes the paper sound a bit like an anti-nuclear piece instead of the very good analysis that it is..." No, 185.51.72.120 did not use this full quote.

1) 185.51.72.120 wrote "too much editorializing about accident potential at Diablo Canyon which makes the paper sound a bit like an anti-nuclear piece." This editor clearly and intentionally left out the part, "instead of the very good analysis that it is..." The only possible reason to leave that out is not to give credit to my work and thus to damage my reputation.

2) You, on the other hand, claim that 185.51.72.120 included the whole sentence in order to justify banning me from editing. But this claim is false. The second, relevant part of the sentence was not included in my Biography, so there was not balance whatsoever to that sentence.

3) Instead, I replaced that quote with a quote directly from Richter's published commentary, and the quote was relevant to the actual main study, the study of Fukushima. The quote above about Diablo Canyon relates only to a sub-portion of the study, not the main part of the study, so I find difficulty in understanding the relevance. The problem is that 185.51.72.120 failed to even discuss the original paper or what it was about and did not even cite it. Writing a paragraph about a criticism of a paper without even describing what the paper is about or even providing a citation or link to the paper is simply not ethical, yet you are using my adjustments to that paragraph as justification to ban me. You would be more credible if you asked for a ban of 185.51.72.120 and Sjschen as well, but you don't.

Finally, instead of commending me for correcting the misrepresentation by 185.51.72.120 of Higley, where the editor falsely claimed that Higley "take(s) issue with Jacobson's paper" when she really said, "The methods of the study were solid, and the estimates were reasonable, although there is still uncertainty around them..." you are again using tortured logic to justify the unjustifiable. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yet editor Mark Z. Jacobson felt that only the absolute positive should be presented? Indeed, this very mis-presentation of "first rate job...good idea", is on reading, exactly what the referenced source claims, that Jacobson "repeated(ly) cited two snippets from Burton Richter’s two-page-long commentary about (his) paper." when approached by health physicists. They are "It is a first rate job…I agree with the authors’ choice.". Which is the very issue we've just seen here on the encyclopedia, in their latest edits.

This does not seem to be very balanced, especially when this particular source was then removed by Mark Z. Jacobson and one linking solely to stanford, was put in its place.

However, please be aware Mark Z. Jacobson, that if anything is added to your biography that you feel is inaccurate. All registered editors of the article have been notified that your talk page here, is to be on our watch-list. This should ensure that you can "provide factual information that few other people have at their fingertips", if the need arises. Your privileges to edit the wikipedia article, do not interfere with your ability to add suggestions or supply factual information here on this page. So you needn't be concerned with this.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References