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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1]"

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)[reply]

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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked only to respond on talk pages, not to edit Wikipedia pages. I feel there is serious defamation occurring on my main biography page that has now spread to other pages on Wikipidia, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mark_Z._Jacobson The person propagating the defamation is the person who blocked me in the first place Help! Despite the written rule of Wikipedia, "And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing -- Guy continues to make reckless defamatory claims with no factual evidence or secondary sources providing factual evidence (only opinion) and has now embarked in an effort to block and erase web pages of another editor Rwbest who independently disagreed with his claims. I am only requesting the opportunity to fact check by commenting and responding on Talk pages but NOT to try to edit Wikipedia pages, including my own bio, in any way. I will attempt to be as factual as possible and non-disruptive. Thank you for considering my request. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am requesting to be unblocked only to respond on talk pages, not to edit Wikipedia pages. I feel there is serious defamation occurring on my main biography page that has now spread to other pages on Wikipidia, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mark_Z._Jacobson The person propagating the defamation is the person who blocked me in the first place [[User:JzG/help|Help!]] Despite the written rule of Wikipedia, "And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing -- Guy continues to make reckless defamatory claims with no factual evidence or secondary sources providing factual evidence (only opinion) and has now embarked in an effort to block and erase web pages of another editor Rwbest who independently disagreed with his claims. I am only requesting the opportunity to fact check by commenting and responding on Talk pages but NOT to try to edit Wikipedia pages, including my own bio, in any way. I will attempt to be as factual as possible and non-disruptive. Thank you for considering my request. [[User:Mark Z. Jacobson|Mark Z. Jacobson]] ([[User talk:Mark Z. Jacobson#top|talk]]) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am requesting to be unblocked only to respond on talk pages, not to edit Wikipedia pages. I feel there is serious defamation occurring on my main biography page that has now spread to other pages on Wikipidia, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mark_Z._Jacobson The person propagating the defamation is the person who blocked me in the first place [[User:JzG/help|Help!]] Despite the written rule of Wikipedia, "And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing -- Guy continues to make reckless defamatory claims with no factual evidence or secondary sources providing factual evidence (only opinion) and has now embarked in an effort to block and erase web pages of another editor Rwbest who independently disagreed with his claims. I am only requesting the opportunity to fact check by commenting and responding on Talk pages but NOT to try to edit Wikipedia pages, including my own bio, in any way. I will attempt to be as factual as possible and non-disruptive. Thank you for considering my request. [[User:Mark Z. Jacobson|Mark Z. Jacobson]] ([[User talk:Mark Z. Jacobson#top|talk]]) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am requesting to be unblocked only to respond on talk pages, not to edit Wikipedia pages. I feel there is serious defamation occurring on my main biography page that has now spread to other pages on Wikipidia, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mark_Z._Jacobson The person propagating the defamation is the person who blocked me in the first place [[User:JzG/help|Help!]] Despite the written rule of Wikipedia, "And in the case of biographies of living individuals it is vitally important always to err on the side of caution." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing -- Guy continues to make reckless defamatory claims with no factual evidence or secondary sources providing factual evidence (only opinion) and has now embarked in an effort to block and erase web pages of another editor Rwbest who independently disagreed with his claims. I am only requesting the opportunity to fact check by commenting and responding on Talk pages but NOT to try to edit Wikipedia pages, including my own bio, in any way. I will attempt to be as factual as possible and non-disruptive. Thank you for considering my request. [[User:Mark Z. Jacobson|Mark Z. Jacobson]] ([[User talk:Mark Z. Jacobson#top|talk]]) 00:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[2]"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[3]"

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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".

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.

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)

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)[reply]

Let me understand you, you claim I did not "disclose" something irrelevant, about an academic, I only recognized, as I thoroughly read the Loftus et. al paper? Ok. Fair enough? I had a look at this "breakthrough institute" to see if your "advocacy" claim holds water, skimming about, I couldn't find any articles with nuclear energy in the title that were written by Jesse Jenkins in the link you provided. Secondly the institute as a whole doesn't seem to spend much of any time talking about nuclear energy on the contrary, they seems pretty ambivalent and not involved in advocacy of any kind, let alone "nuclear advocacy". With articles on the "gender problem in environmentalism" and the like, being the topics in their "journal" at the present.

Searching for evidence of your alleged advocacy, it seems to have published articles relating to nuclear energy, such as this one in 2015, titled "Beyond Technology Tribalism A Call for Humility and Comity in the Clean Tech Debate", which includes passages like the following. "he-said-she-said attacks upon one another by solar and nuclear advocates have poisoned every echelon of the energy policy discourse, from the blogosphere all the way up to policymaking. Global warming is a huge challenge. It will require every low-carbon technology we have. Putting all of our eggs in either the solar or nuclear basket presumes knowledge of the future path of those technologies that nobody actually has. "The tribal warfare that is so common in debates about the low-carbon energy transition has burned me out. After watching and participating in these debates over the years — feeling like I always need to have the ‘right' answer — I’ve come to believe they are more about posturing than addressing the hard realities of energy. I know most people are well meaning. I believe a robust and sometimes heated debate is healthy. But when we constantly pit ourselves against different tribes, we shut off a chance to seriously consider the merits of their arguments."

From reading this, I get the impression, is this Jacobson's evidence of "nuclear advocacy"? Or is this apolitical pragmatism that is in reality, criticizing that very tribalistic mindset of advocacy?

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If there were a full discussion of the paper itself followed by opinions rather than a paragraph of nothing but lopsided attacks against the paper without even a reference as to what paper was being discussed, it would be easier to have edited that paragraph. As it stands, though, it is absolutely ridiculous Boundarylayer to say "this does not seem to be very balanced" when there is no substance to be balanced about. THERE WAS NO PAPER LISTED TO DISCUSS, PERIOD. IT WAS SIMPLY VANDALISM AND AN EFFORT TO DAMAGE Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from injecting passages within replies, put them at the end, like this. Thank you. I won't be responding further until we can agree to this established method of communication.

I do not believe this editorial issue was the reason why you are banned, I think the issue has to do with Primary sources, COI, edits like this and so on.

Do you disagree with the IP editor or the source they added, that Jacobson "has repeated(ly) cited two snippets from Burton Richter’s two page commentary about the paper. It is a ﬁrst rate job…and...I agree with the authors’ choice."

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTI = nuclear advocacy group is common knowledge, e.g., https://wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/840/nuclear-economics-critical-responses-breakthrough-institute-propaganda

And here is the main donor and Board of Directors member http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/opinion/pritzker-nuclear-pandora/index.html https://thebreakthrough.org/people/profile/rachel-pritzker https://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Now-Trending-Advanced-Nuclear-Energy-Technology http://www.ans.org/pi/news/article-526/ Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Adams is another nuclear advocate. If you claim to be balanced, why do you continuously cite nuclear advocates and give weight to them? Here is our published response to Richter

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/FukushimaReply.pdf

and here are additional posted responses to nuclear advocates. As you can see, there is one response (the very last one on page 4) out of many, that uses Richter's quote:

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/RespCommFukushima.pdf Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Vandalism

The Wikipedia community has a clear definition of vandalism. You were not correcting vandalism. You were changing an emphasis that you did not like. That is not correcting vandalism. Vandalism doe not consist of any edit representing you in a way you don't like, and it certainly does not consist of asserting your version of events as the sole valid version. And that is what you were doing. I am sure it does not feel that way to you, because nobody can be dispassionate about their own life and work, but that is what you were doing.

You appear to want us to give you the last word in every discussion of your real-world dispute. We have a simple answer to that: No. You may not use Wikipedia to fix real-world problems. Go back to the scientific press and have your argument there. We will follow independent third party commentary that adjudicates the merits of the arguments. You appear surprised at the negative reaction to your suing people for scientific speech. Bless you for your naïveté. England had a long and difficult campaign to change its libel laws specifically to protect scientific speech from libel claims, influenced by legal thuggery against Peter Wilmshurst and Simon Singh. I don't think you' even be able to bring this suit in England.

On a more practical note, a large part of your problem is your tendency to say you did X first, best or most influentially, and to support that by a reference to your own original paper. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to cite a reliable independent secondary source that makes the claim. And if someone else finds an equivalent source that disputes it, we will include that as well. In your commentary above you do not seem to allow for even the possibility that any interpretation of any fact other than yours could possibly be valid. That is disturbing.

You've been advised to contact OTRS. Feel free. I no longer do OTRS work, but I wrote the standard advice to biography subjects handed out by OTRS agents. I have been protecting biographies form abuse since before we even had a policy on that. My suggestion to you would be to calm down and start asking questions, rather than loudly demanding that we publish your version of events backed in almost every case by primary references to your own work. That is not how Wikipedia works, and insisting on this, and insisting that anything else is vandalism, will simply drive people away. Our policy is reliable, independent, secondary sources. Your work is neither independent nor secondary here. Do you see what I mean? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion Guy. The Vandalism site you point to defines vandalism as "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

Based on your own definition, your "removal of encyclopedic content...without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view" appears to be Vandalism. Specifically, you changed the December 5 entry below to the December 6 entry, removing all balance to the paragraph, eliminating the neutral or minority (call it what you will) point of view to express your personal point of view, which as you admit is that the lawsuit is over "scientific speech."

Let's first look at just one fact. The first allegation in the lawsuit regarding content of the paper is that the authors were informed ahead of publication that Table 1 contains average values yet they refused to correct what they wrote in their article, which was the factually inaccurate claim that it contains maximum values. They used this claim of maximum values to claim several figures were in errors and to claim that this (along with one other) alleged modeling error "invalidates" the whole study.

Please answer, yes or no. Is whether Table 1 contains average or maximum values a question of "scientific speech" or is it a question of "fact?" If you agree it is a question of fact, then I hope you will withdraw your claim that the suit is over "scientific speech."

Further, that the lawsuit is an issue of facts has been written by independent secondary sources, including

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

You erased the first of these and were not aware of the second. You also erased the quote from Professor Shamoo, an independent academic who is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal Accountability in Research. Why would you erase a quote from a completely independent academic who specializes in ethics? Why would you also erase the secondary source attorney's statement. It seems on its face, you are pushing your own point of view, your personal point of view, not a neutral point of view.

December 5, 2017 "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]"

December 6, 2017. "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]" Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your claim that some of my previous corrections to other editors were not corrections to vandalism, Guy, there is a second Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandalism_on_Wikipedia that defines Vandalism differently from the page you referred to. Specifically, that page defines Vandalism as

"On Wikipedia, 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."

I specifically removed content that I considered "offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading" since the content was clearly designed to humiliate and degrade, not provide any useful information for any legitimate purpose. Each person may have a different opinion about what is "offensive, humiliating, or otherwise degrading," but the fact is that is the definition and Wikipedia does not provide any way to interpret this except to say very clearly 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.'In my case, I allege both - that the content I removed violated the biography of living persons policy, which is to be balanced and some content was unambiguous vandalism as clearly defined by Wikipedia. As such, I do not see justification in your statement that I was not correcting vandalism. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I mean about asking rather than demanding. I've been on Wikipedia for over thirteen years, I have around a hundred thousand edits to something approaching 40,000 pages, I have been an administrator for over a decade. It is reasonably safe to assume that I understand what Wikipedia means by vandalism. Instead of asking, though, you seek to explain to me, by reference to an entirely self-serving example, that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And that is why you are having difficulties on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help! You can tell how weak someone's argument is when they continuously refuse to address the issue (in this case, your removal of content followed by your admission that you have a specific point of view and your refusal to correct your intentional action), and instead divert the subject. I have been writing, publishing, and editing for 27 years, and I know the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy, between biased and not biased, and between intent to discredit and humiliate and not. Don't patronize me. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so having decided that you are the arbiter of what constitutes vandalism on Wikipedia, you now believe that the best way to persuade people to help you is to insult them. Let me know how that works out for you. Bye. Guy (Help!) 06:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic Guy that you use a primary source, yourself, to contend what the meaning of words provided in Wikipedia's own dictionary are, when you rail against others using primary sources that are actually published in the literature and peer-reviewed and accepted by those who are not the primary source, and don't even bother to provide a published, independent secondary source to support, even by example, what your interpretation of the definition is. Nevertheless, you entirely miss the point. Whether you want to call changing a balanced statement to an imbalanced statement vandalism or something else (that is by falsely implying that news reports and academics have only criticized the suit whereas in reality some have not, whereas others have, and changing the word "request" to "demand" to make it appear as if the subject of the biography did something that there is no record of), the only relevant issue is that at a minimum it appears to violate Wikipedia's requirement of balance and at worst it is an element of defamation, since the statement was intentionally changed by you, with the apparent impact to cause more damage to the subject of the biography in the eyes of the public. Again, this should be corrected regardless of whether it is called vandalism or anything else. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG User:Rwbest User:The Banner User:DGG I have been following the editing/comments on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Z._Jacobson and am requesting the consideration of corrections or clarifications of the material facts listed below.

1. "In 2009 Jacobson and Mark Delucchi, published a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences..." This is a mistake. The 2009 paper was published in Scientific American. The PNAS paper was from 2015.

2009 SciAm paper: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf

2015 PNAS paper: http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/CONUSGridIntegration.pdf

2. "In 2017 Jacobson filed a lawsuit against PNAS, demanding retraction and $10 million in damages..."

(a) No, the lawsuit was against PNAS for defamation, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel and Dr. Christopher Clack for defamation - See pages 33-40 of the actual lawsuit at

https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jacobson-Vs-Clack-NAS-complaint-DC-Superior-court.pdf

(b) The claim that I "demanded" retraction and $10 million is false. The lawsuit itself is clear that the relief is "respectively request(ed)," not "demanded". Further, it asks for damages "to be determined at trial believed to be in excess of 10 million," so does not ask for 10 million specifically. See page 40 of the lawsuit,

https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jacobson-Vs-Clack-NAS-complaint-DC-Superior-court.pdf

3. "...and 19 other researchers that critiqued his 2009 paper." No, the lawsuit was not filed because they "critiqued" the paper. The court filing above is clear in Paragraph 40 (page 16), that the main purpose of the lawsuit was to correct factually false and misleading statement:

(page 16) "The Clack Article, which NAS agreed to publish in PNAS over Dr. Jacobson's objections, contained numerous factually false and misleading statements. Among the most damaging falsehoods is the Clack Article's claim that the Jacobson Article contains modeling errors..."

Independent writers have recognized that the lawsuit was over factually false statements and not over scientific disagreements:

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

The fact that several blogs and news articles incorrectly assumed the lawsuit was to stifle scientific criticism has been elucidated eloquently at

http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/

where it states, "Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation. No matter how much you might oppose a person's ideas or actions, you should at least be able to say what those ideas or actions are. That doesn't seem to be the case. By failing to even acknolwedge Jacobson's allegations, people seem to be defending the right of Jacobson's critics to lie about him."

The false implication that the lawsuit was over scientific disagreements rather than false statements of fact is repeated under the Section, "Criticism of the lawsuit," where the text states, "News reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit," which references four articles that repeat the false claim that the lawsuit was over science and no articles contradicting this claim are referenced.

4. "In 2018 Jacobson dropped the lawsuit." False. The correct term is "voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice." The current version of the biography cites the most extreme possible article, "A Stanford Professor drops his ridiculous defamation lawsuit..." which repeats the false claim that the lawsuit was over science rather than over false facts. Other articles provide a more accurate and balanced assessment. For example,

https://retractionwatch.com/2018/02/23/stanford-prof-plans-to-drop-10m-suit-against-pnas-and-critic/

5. Under "Research," The statement, "The Solutions Project is a political advocacy group" is not true. It is a charitable nonprofit that specifically cannot legally take part in political advocacy and instead operates to promote social welfare.

6. Under "100% Renewable Energy," where the text says, "In 2015 Jacobson was lead author in two peer reviewed papers..." it seems there should be a link to the actual papers otherwise, how is this helping readers who want to see what the papers are about?:

Jacobson, M.Z., M.A. Delucchi, G. Bazouin, Z.A.F. Bauer, C.C. Heavey, E. Fisher, S. B. Morris, D.J.Y. Piekutowski, T.A. Vencill, T.W. Yeskoo, 100% clean and renewable wind, water, sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States, Energy and Environmental Sciences, 8, 2093-2117, doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J, 2015 http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf

Jacobson, M.Z., M.A. Delucchi, M.A. Cameron, and B.A. Frew, A low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem with 100% penetration of intermittent wind, water, and solar for all purposes, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 112 (49), 15,060-15,065 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510028112, 2015 http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/CONUSGridIntegration.pdf

7. Under "Opinions on Energy Systems," where the text says, "Jacobson has taken a similar approach to calculating the hypothetical effects of nuclear wars on the climate but has further extended this into providing an analysis that intends to inform policy makers on which energy sources to support, as of 2009," it seems the reference should be to the actual paper,

Jacobson, M.Z., Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security, Energy & Environmental Science, 2, 148-173, doi:10.1039/b809990c, 2009, https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf

Again, without reference to the actual paper, how is this useful to readers?

8. Under "Opinions on Energy Systems," where the text says," Responding to a commentary on his work in the Journal Environmental Science and Technology in 2013, Dr. James Hansen has characterized Jacobson's analysis on this topic of greenhouse gas emissions, as "lack(ing) credibility" and similarly regards Jacobson's other viewpoint of extra "opportunity-cost" emissions as "dubious".

These comments are ad hominem attacks rather than factual criticisms. The first claim of "greenhouse gas emissions lacking credibility" is contradicted by the fact that the 68-180.1 g/kWh includes lifecycle emissions of 9-70 g-CO2/kWh (Table 3 of https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/ReviewSolGW09.pdf), which is well within the IPCC range of 4-110 g-CO2/kWh from Reference 49 (IPCC) of the current biography.

The second inaccuracy refers to the 59-106 g-CO2/kWh from Table 3 which are opportunity cost emissions that are the emissions resulting from running the current electric power grid (which includes dirty fuels) because of the much longer time lag between planning and operation of a nuclear plant (10-19 years) versus that of a wind or solar farm (2-5 years). This factor had not previously been accounted for. However, this opportunity cost emissions has been supported in other published papers by multiple authors, including a published critique of Hansen's claim

Sovacool, B.K., P. Parenteau, M.V. Ramana, S.V. Valentine, M.Z. Jacobson, M.A. Delucchi, M. Diesendorf, Valuing the mortality and climate benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy: Response to Kharecha and Hansen, Environmental Science, and Technology, 47, 6715-6717, doi:10.1021/es401667h, 2013 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es401667h

9. Under "Opinions on Energy Systems," where the text says,"With the foundation of Hansen's incredulity being based on French experience, that decarbonized ~80% of the grid in 15 years, completed 56 reactors in the 15 year period..." This claim itself has been contradicted by

Lovins, A.B., T. Palazzi, R. Laemel, and E. Goldfield (2018) Relative deployment rates of renewable and nuclar power: A cautionary tale of two metrics," Energy Research and Social Science, 38, 188-192. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618300598

which states in the conclusion, "In summary, claims that global electricity generation is growing or has ever grown faster from nuclear power than from modern renewables are empirically false, responsible scientists should stop repeating them,..."

10. Under "Criticism and Lawsuit," there is no discussion whatsoever as to why the lawsuit was filed, which was to "have the scientific record corrected" and "to remedy falsification of material facts"

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/11/03/document_gw_04.pdf

https://retractionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Jacobson-Vs-Clack-NAS-complaint-DC-Superior-court.pdf

11. Under "Criticism and Lawsuit" this section is unbalanced because it fails to report the fact that some blogs and scientists supported the lawsuit:

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

Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted, though please note that you are not well placed to make any objective determination of the significance or balance of opinions in anything relating to yourself, for obvious reasons. Guy (Help!) 17:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy You have a legal requirement to correct false facts and distortions in a biography about another person. Statements of opinion are one thing but false facts and distortions are another. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States" Defamation is a law in every state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude, but talk page access while blocked is only and only for discussing the current block. Not to complain about a page. The Banner talk 18:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, but can you please provide a specific reference for this claim since I cannot find it. In any case, I think most people would find it helpful if factual errors or unsupported statements are pointed out since accuracy in Wikipedia or any biography is the goal. Mark Z. Jacobson (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I have filed a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rwbest, as I do not think al participants in the discussions are real existing editor. The Banner talk 22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Did Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson just call anyone supporting nuclear energy a zealot?

[2] Did Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson just call anyone supporting nuclear energy a zealot?

[3] Did Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson just call anyone supporting nuclear energy a zealot?

[1]

[2]

[3]