User talk:JournalScholar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a STAR![edit]

 The Missing Barnstar

You are doing great work here! This award for your efforts is long overdue. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (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).

JournalScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Removing unverifiable and unsourced content in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is not edit warring. I only make good faith edits, provide clear reasons for the edits and always use reliable sources. MastCell gave no warning before frivolously blocking my account.

Decline reason:

It is indeed edit warring, and you were warned here. Favonian (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (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.

Why are you claiming you weren't warned? I clearly warned you and you ignored the warning. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also warned him not to edit war and to engage as well, on the talk page and on his user page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you freely violate Wikipedia policy by including content that violates, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR?--JournalScholar (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which edit did I make that violated a Wikipedia policy? Apparently anyone can add unverifiable content and when contended does not have to provide a reliable source. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2012 (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).

JournalScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What edit did I make that violated Wikipedia policy? I would like the specific edit and how it violated policy. All my edits were for removal of unverifiable and unsourced content that violated WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR. These were all in good faith and I will hold any of my edits up for administrative review.

Decline reason:

Sorry, all of these are not subject to an exemption, see Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. Max Semenik (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (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.

As I have told you several times; when you remove content and it is restored, do not remove it again; you need to give people time to get things sourced or fix any issues; go discuss it on the talk page per WP:BRD. We don't just mass delete content we think is poorly sourced. You've been citing the policies without actually reading them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am very careful about removal of any content and do my own extensive research to locate an reliable source for the information before removal. I will gladly apologize if you can prove me wrong and find a reliable source to support the unsourced information I removed. I may not be perfect but I am very thorough. Anytime contentious content is remove the burden of proof is on the person restoring the content to provide a reliable source that is verifiable. WP:BRD is not a policy and does not have to be followed. As per WP:V "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --JournalScholar (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an WP:ANI thread about your deletions of sourced content which you have removed from numerous articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to be clear wtih you, as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent them from continuing. The only exemption is reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring becasue it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.
  • What to do instead:
Mark disputed statements, or if needed the entire page with appropriate tags
initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthened block to indefinite[edit]

I've increased the duration of your block to indefinite. In a current thread at AN/I, there are significant concerns about the high volume of questionable edits you've made. More concerningly, there is some evidence of possible plagiarism in a number of your edits. I'd like to leave open the possibility of unblocking you at some point in the future, provided that we can be assured that you understand sourcing/content policy and the basics of plagiarism, but this block is intended to give other editors time to sort through your work and identify the scope of the problems.

I've posted this block at AN/I, where other admins will review it. If there's substantial disagreement with my decision to block you, then you'll be unblocked. If you'd like to make a statement, you can place it here and someone can copy it over to the AN/I thread for greater visibility. You can also see the guide to appealing blocks. MastCell Talk 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely ridiculous and uncalled for. I am unable to even defend myself! Why are you not allowing me to defend myself? I cannot hope to have someone copy and paste this to the ANI board. All of my edits are good faith edits that have been fully sourced and each edit fully documented. I have never removed sourced criticisms for dubious reasons - every single reason for the edit was clearly given. If you are not going to review my edits independently but attempt to claim by looking at a simple before and after diff then that I am "whitewashing" something then you are not attempting to be intellectually honest. I cannot defend myself on this talk page. All those editors complaining about me do not want me editing because I was attempting to give those BLPs a NPOV and not the negatively biased view that they are presented in. Any issue of plagiarism I will gladly correct and they were all in good faith. Other editors clearly read those and made no attempt to correct them or point this out as a problem of which I would have immediately corrected. I had assumed since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit.--JournalScholar (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2012 (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).

JournalScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made.

Decline reason:

I read both your current unblock requests; you are only allowed to have one open at a time so I have removed the other one. I see a lot of passion and some good arguments. Unfortunately I see a lot of blaming other people and I do not see an unequivocal statement along the lines of "I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again". Having read this talk page and the AN/I discussion I think the situation is best summed up by whoever it was that said "being right is not a defence against edit-warring". So, I am declining this request as I still have concerns that if you were unblocked you might go back to the problematic behaviour that got you blocked. Take as long as you need to understand why you were blocked, read the guide to unblocks thoroughly, and come back with another unblock request if you like. Sorry. John (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (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.

User:JournalScholar's two statements above have been copied to WP:ANI#Whitewashing to facilitate review of this block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make it perfectly clear that every single charge made against me by IRWolfie and Nomoskedasticity are baseless and I would be willing to review every single charge with an administrator to show that those edits all fall within Wikipedia policy guidelines. I would request an administrator to review the Patrick Michaels page as a user has completely reverted all of the edits I made without justification. Each of my edits to his page were made within Wikipedia guidelines in relation to WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. For instance IRWolfie incorrectly stated that this edit was an "unexplained" removal when the reason was explicitly given, [1] "Source does not include quote in violation of WP:V". Also ThePowerofX was well aware of those edits he is now claiming plagiarism on and made no attempt to address these or bring them to my attention. They were made in good faith and would have been addressed if brought to my attention. It is obvious to me by not doing so but making these charges on the ANI board he is simply attempting to get my account blocked. Anyone can review my edits and see they are all made in good faith and within Wikipedia guidelines. I make no excuses that my purpose when editing those BLPs is to present them from a NPOV. If this is the charge then I would find myself guilty. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"rapid-fire removal of sourced content" - The edits are simply consecutive so they can be reviewed to conform to Wikipedia policy, there is nothing "rapid-fire" about them. Content was only removed if it violated WP:BLP, WP:V or WP:RS. Saying "sourced" content was removed is a baseless allegation as you will find I have done no such thing. Removing content that is "sourced" but to an unreliable source is within Wikipedia policy of WP:V and WP:RS. I will review and defend any edit I have ever made on Wikipedia with an adminstrator. --JournalScholar (talk) 03:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I just want to be clear that the indefinite block is not a permanent block. It is a means of freezing your activity so that some serious concerns about your editing could be sorted through in a more speedy manner. You are absolutely allowed to defend yourself, as you have here.
  • OK, let's get to some specific edits so we can better understand your thought process. How is this edit original research? How is this not a reliable source and in violation of BLP? --Jprg1966 (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all are you an administrator? As I only wish to make my case to Administrators. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2] As per WP:NOR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer. Contentious and unsourced information can be immediately removed from any BLP see WP:BLP. Also this is Roy Spencer's BLP not a discussion of the UAH satellite temperature record which should take place on the appropriate Wikipedia page, UAH satellite temperature dataset. --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Self published sources WP:SELFPUB (a congressional submission by Holdren) cannot be used in discussions of third parties - Pat Michaels. There is no editorial oversight of these submissions. I also believe it to be speculative gossip and not appropriate for a BLP. Holdren stated "He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature" - that is not something that can be factually determined. "being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces" - That is a personal attack and not appropriate for a BLP. Do you really believe that is encyclopedic content? --JournalScholar (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone going to respond to my arguments? I feel like I am being convicted of a crime with no evidence to prove I am guilty. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the ANI Page - "The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)"

This comment does not address any of my arguments. I have not removed any sourced content from a reliable source that I disagree with. The two edits selected by Jprg1966 deal with WP:NOR and WP:V for Spencer and WP:SELFPUB and WP:RS for Michaels. If you are going to charge me with a crime provide the evidence and address my arguments. He made no discussion of "copyvios". As I stated above I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully source it would meet criteria for adequate credit. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I have not removed any sourced content from a reliable source that I disagree with": [4][5][6][7][8], [9][10][11], [12]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. [13] As explained to you repeatedly that is a "press release" which are self published and cannot be used to discuss third parties WP:RS. Please address my argument and show me where in Wikipedia policies a press release (self-published source) can be used to discuss third parties.
2. [14] That is sourced from a blog which violates WP:RS.
3. [15] Self published site [16] violates WP:RS. This section was also heavily editorialized from a NPOV ("the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change considers") and redundant as this was discussed in the "Debate and controversy section". The paper "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature" is still cited on the page. I also do not feel it is a WP:NPOV lede for a BLP.
4. [17] As I stated, "This is about Muller and Best not Watts and his Surface Stations project and does not belong here." Should Watts' BLP be used to discuss Muller's project? A compromise was reached and there is a section on this here Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) but it only now includes specific mention of Watts.
5. [18] I have already explained this multiple times. That is not fully sourced in anyway: As per WP:NOR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist" That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer. Contentious and unsourced information can be immediately removed from any BLP see WP:BLP. Also this is Roy Spencer's BLP not a discussion of the UAH satellite temperature record which should take place on the appropriate Wikipedia page, UAH satellite temperature dataset.
6. [19] Where is the source? Are you even checking these before making false allegations?
7. [20] As stated, Sourcewatch is a wiki and violates WP:RS - have you ever read this?
8. [21] As stated "Removed information from unreliable source in violation of WP:RS, Huffington Post blogs are not reliable sources, cite incorrectly stated "Boston Globe".
Which one would you like to debate? I also would appreciate it if you do not make these false allegations about me in the future as you clearly do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let us briefly examine number 4. Your attitude was (is) very combative. What you describe as "compromise" is actually me walking away from the article, tired of attempting to reason with you. To recap: Anthony Watts commenced a research project, fearing that many temperature reading stations across the United States are poorly placed, compromising our understanding of global warming. He established a website SURFACESTATIONS.ORG to document his findings. A prominent physicist, Richard A. Muller, approached Watts for his data and proceeded to examine the issue in considerable detail. Among the many false claims that are advanced by sceptics daily, Muller considered this particular issue worthy of attention. Watts met with Muller and his team of scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and further publicised the enterprise on his blog.[22] We also have direct quotes from Muller crediting Watts for the endeavour,[23] and his work was reported by numerous quality sources. This undertaking is Anthony Watts' only project that has resulted in a paper submitted to a scientific journal. As Richard Muller himself explained: "When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups [i.e. NASA] had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that." The information is both notable and relevant to Watts' biography. Consequently, on 11 August, I started a new section (Surface Stations Project) that I now invite uninvolved editors to review. User JournalScholar resisted all effort to convey the above information because (dare I suggest) the result of the Berkeley study reflected negatively on the person whose reputation (s)he was attempting to uphold. A brief examination of the article history reveals the unnecessary wrangling that ensued (03:36, 12 August 2012‎) and the point at which I gave up trying to help create a concise section that made sense. — ThePowerofX 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC
You stating my attitude is "combative" does not make it so. Someone using someone else's data for their own project is not notable on a BLP. Watt's BLP is about him not anyone that uses his work. Muller's project has nothing to do with the Surface Station project started by Watts and does not belong in that section. This is the equivalent of including any person who cites another person's paper in the original author's BLP. The carbon brief is not a reliable source WP:RS. Watt's blog cannot be used to discuss third parties (Muller) WP:RS. Muller's project should be discussed on his own page. I rejected all claims you made that cannot be attributed to Watts from a reliable source as this is his BLP not Mullers. --JournalScholar (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I need not say anymore. — ThePowerofX 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your assessment of what constitutes a reliable source is also dubious. Apparently, Anthony Watts' own website is not an acceptable source for his own opinion (diff) but adding FAKEWARRIORS.ORG to a BLP is perfectly fine. (diff) — ThePowerofX 18:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a discussion of your use of the blog source in this instance as I prefer to err on the cautious side with BLPs and never try to use blogs to cite anything. I was also under the impression that 501(c)(3) organizations were a reliable source. If not could you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has demonstrated he doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. Despite being told numerous times it is not the case; he still maintains that a press releases and blogs are unreliable for their own opinion, including other dubious removals, if he is unblocked it is clear that he will still be disruptive as a result. He also has failed to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE and that we don't just mass delete content which can reasonably be sourced. He claimed this material had no source: [24], but the source at the end of the paragraph seems to be on the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources cannot be used for claims about third parties WP:SELFSOURCE "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: "2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);". You cannot use a press release to comment on a third party in this case a journal. WP:BURDEN specifically stated: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." and "You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." [25] Please quote from that to support the contended sentence. I have never mass deleted content that could be reasonably sourced. --JournalScholar (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JournalScholar: Having an unblock request declined is surely frustrating, but John's review was thoughtful and not lopsided against you. I encourage you to follow his advice by internalizing all of the policies he listed and coming back a bit later for reinstatement. Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but "indefinite" just means "until you can prove you will not be disruptive." Some things that can help your case are voluntarily taking on editing restrictions like 1RR or steering clear of certain topics, or promising to discuss changes on talk pages first. One step in coming back is understanding the policies. The other step is showing you can edit collaboratively. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself, I'd like to see not just an understanding of the letter of policy, but of its spirit. For example, you frequently cite WP:BLP as justification for your edits, but your commitment to that policy is called into question by your use of patently unreliable sources in BLPs (e.g. [26]) and the fact that your userpage was, until deleted, an attack page aimed at a notable living person (deleted revision, visible to admins only). Taken together, this discrepancy suggests that you have not internalized the actual principles embodied in WP:BLP, but rather use the policy opportunistically to remove material which conflicts with your personal ideology.

You also haven't really addressed the plagiarism issue, beyond saying that it was done "in good faith". What are you actually going to do about it? You've created a good deal of work for other editors. Are you going to help them identify and rectify the plagiarism you've introduced? That would be a potential starting point.

That said, you don't necessarily have to convince me. As I've noted elsewhere, if another admin feels comfortable unblocking you based on your representations to date, I won't object, although I'm also not particularly encouraged thus far. MastCell Talk 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the deleted attack page. That makes it pretty hard to take seriously any edit you make citing WP:BLP. You are going to have to work hard to convince us that unblocking you would actually make Wikipedia better. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are obviously also unaware the conflict was initiated by the "attacked" person when they edited my personal page to libelously state that my account was a "sockpuppet". My accusations against the "attacked" party were actually fully supported and sourced but I was unaware of the Wikipedia policy on this issue. Due to the initiation by the other party this issue was dropped. I find it very disturbing that these events are being presented as half-truths and are unjustly being used as excuses to extend my block. --JournalScholar (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make sure I understand, then. An editor labeled your pseudonymous Wikipedia account as a possible sockpuppet. You regarded this as "libelous" and retaliated by creating an attack page maligning that editor under his real-life name. Is that correct and complete? MastCell Talk 17:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever reason my contributions do not appear to be taken into account as they have with other administrators here. Whatever old frivolous charge is brought up it is used as a new reason to extend the block. All my edits are in good faith on every BLP I made a change to. I was under the impression that a 501(c)(3) organizations were a reliable source if they are not could you point me to the Wikipedia policy that states otherwise. Why are you not fairly presenting the fact that I only changed my personal page AFTER that person unjustly accused me of being a sock puppet by changing my page to state this. Why was no block enacted on him? I was also unaware of that policy at the time. Regardless, this issue has already been dealt with and should have no bearing on this. I find it seriously egregious that you are now suggesting that I "rather use the policy opportunistically to remove material which conflicts with your personal ideology". What exactly is my ideology? The palgiarism issue does not justify an indefinite block and should be handled as a separate issue such as attempting to discuss the issue with me as a start.--JournalScholar (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to discuss the plagiarism with you. I asked you, above, what you intend to do to rectify the situation. I can't identify a response in your post. MastCell Talk 05:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even clear on what is or is not allowed regarding paraphrasing or the policy in general. I found the wiki policy document on this issue not very clear. Like I said I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit and would be willing to review this with a wikipedia editor who specializes in this area. I cannot rectify the situation if I do not know how or if I even broke policy. Regardless, based on wikipedia policy WP:PLAG this does not justify an indefinite block. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:20, 6 September 2012 (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).

JournalScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for WP:PLAG which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor," These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my good faith edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator has made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. Secondly, my block also states "rapid-fire removal of sourced content imposes substantial burden on other editors" with absolutely no evidence presented from the blocking administrator to support these false allegations. I asked for the charges to be presented and the administrator has not presented any examples nor how they violated Wikipedia policy. I have never removed sourced content that did not violate WP:RS, WP:V or WP:BLP.

Decline reason:

I have found numerous problems with your editing, including, but not limited to, the following. (Further examples of the problems are mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) You have repeatedly misrepresented your own editing, that of others, and the content of sources. For example, referring to this edit above, you said "That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer." However, there is not a "sole source": there were two different references which you removed; and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph. Even if it is true that neither source mentions Spencer, that is not justification for removing the whole paragraph. There seems no justification for dismissing these two sources as not reliable. Another example of your misrepresentation is your claim above that you were not warned about edit warring before being blocked, when you had in fact been warned at least twice. (One of those warnings you removed after three minutes without comment, and you engaged in discussion in response to the other one, posting four times to the thread.) You have engaged in attempts to wikilawyer about such issues as what constitutes a reliable source, showing no willingness at all to accept that consensus is clearly against you particular interpretations. You have objected to sources you don't like on spurious grounds, and sometimes you have just asserted that a source is unacceptable, without giving any reason at all. When errors in your reading of what constitutes a reliable source have been pointed out, instead of accepting that you were mistaken you have shifted your ground. However justifiable or unjustifiable may be individual edits, the overall tenor of your editing has been to try to shift the balance of coverage to reflect a particular point of view, and you have persistently and consistently resisted consensus that you are shifting the balance away towards non-neutral coverage. You have created copyright infringements. The use of the word "plagiarism" is probably to some extent a red herring, as copyright infringement is a more serious issue. And so it goes on... While some of your arguments appear to have some merit, and some of your editing appears to be constructive, I think that MastCell had it right at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in saying "Given his track record and rapid-fire editing, this imposes a substantial burden on other editors to sort through a high volume of his edits and try to separate those that are arguably reasonable from those that are abusive." Your claim to be acting in the interest of a neutral point of view is not supported by the deleted version of your user page, which at best was a clear attempt to plug a particular and very decidedly non-neutral point of view, and has been regarded by more than one editor as an attack page. Finally, I see a lack of any understanding or acceptance of the problems with your editing, and your unblock request contains denials of the existence of problems that are plainly visible. This does not produce any faith that you will not continue to edit in the same way. (There is a possible exception in the case of edit warring, but even there you state only that you "completely understand" the first block, which is a little ambiguous as to whether you accept that you were at fault, and in any case that is irrelevant to the current block.) 

JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2012 (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.

I would really recommend waiting a little while to ask for another unblock. Admins are generally cautious overturning the decisions of other admins unless there was a blatant instance of injustice (which, although I support your return to Wikipedia, I do not believe occurred). Patience is crucial.

Another essential element of your appeal should be an explanation of your future behavior in addition to the behavior that resulted in your block. This is not something you have addressed.

By the way, you have options for talking to admins outside of asking for unblock. For example, you could e-mail one. (Although this privilege can be revoked if it is abused.) --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? No injustice? Please explain what evidence has been presented by the blocking administrator to support the indefinite block based on this statement, "rapid-fire removal of sourced content imposes substantial burden on other editors" and how can I be blocked for a policy WP:PLAG that states I should not be? What wikipedia policy did I violate that warrants an indefinite block? --JournalScholar (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've butted heads with JS over and over again, so I'm not exactly a natural ally. To be frank, I've found him stiff, mechanical and unresponsive. But I don't think he's at the point where an indefinite block is appropriate. If nothing else, WP:ROPE says to give him a chance to either prove himself or hang himself. I hope he does the former, but if he does the latter then reluctant supporters such as myself will flip, making this a more genuine community ban. So please unblock this editor but put them on 1RR or something and watch them closely. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Whitewashing" BLPs[edit]

Fascinatingly I am falsely accused of "whitewashing" BLPs by removing unsourced information in violation of WP:V and WP:RS in an attempt to present them from a NPOV. Yet this edit was made to Dessler's page to remove a fully sourced quote from a reliable source Nature with the comment "For someone who has done so much work on cc, we can do better than this". Yet apparently no work is allowed to be done to climatologist Patrick Michaels page even when all the edits were within Wikipedia policy. I do not know of a bigger hypocrisy here. --JournalScholar (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dessler is a climate scientist who has spent many years studying the atmospheric process at work. The answer he provided -- the one and only quote you added -- was in response to a specific question regarding his new role of communicating climate science to the public (as a Google Science Communication Fellow). Absent context, it occurred to me that a single remark about 'children' and 'train tracks' is not the most technically impressive answer or representative of his many years working in the field. It's a question of weight. — ThePowerofX 09:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many years he studied something is not justification for removal of fully sourced content which was his views, explicitly in his own words. It was clear he was referring to communication, specifically "I view it as a moral responsibility to communicate those risks". At best your argument is for a context change and does not justify removal of fully sourced content. Not being "technically impressive" is not a reason for removal of fully sourced content. What kind of editing behavior is that? Someone else has to call hypocrisy on this. --JournalScholar (talk) 09:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having a valid source is not the only criteria when assessing the quality of a contribution. Are you aware of WP:WEIGHT? My argument is for a balanced section fully representative of his work and recent shift toward communication, which is not something easily encapsulated in a single quote. The basis of his conviction is important, otherwise we risk painting him as an activist. I hope that is not what you intended. — ThePowerofX 10:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using your argument no Wikipedia content would ever get started. Lack of what you consider "balance" is not justification for removal of verifiable content from a reliable source. I intended nothing other than to provide his views in his own words which is why it is directly quoted. Do you believe this section on Patrick Michaels is "balanced" and a WP:NPOV? --JournalScholar (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly possible to expand an article in a balanced manner. It helps to know the subject matter. But driving by, adding quotes that take your fancy, can lead to problems (as it did here). — ThePowerofX 10:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did not answer my question and your removal of fully sourced content should be reviewed by an administrator. --JournalScholar (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (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).

JournalScholar (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In response to JamesBWatson unblock Review I have not misrespresented my editing in any way. JamesBWatson correctly notes that I mispoke in my statement regarding this edit and yes there are two sources but this does not change my argument. JamesBWatson stated "and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph." but does not provide this evidence. I read both sources and could not find support for what was stated in that paragraph in either source. The sources were not dismissed as not reliable but not relevant to the paragraph or for Spencer's BLP. Both sources were discussing the satellite temperature record and not Spencer. My comment regarding not being warned was in reference to the blocking administrator, MastCell never warning me. JamesBWatson took that out of context. I have had no administrative ruling on what is a reliable source regarding sources that I have contended. I am still waiting for this evidence. None of my objections to sources has been on spurious grounds but directly relating to WP:RS policy. Name the source that you feel I have not given adequate explanation for and I will as I always have in extensive detail. Yes I have tried to shift the point of view to a WP:NPOV. As already explained my user page was only updated in response to that user adding libelous charges to my page of being a "sockpuppet". Why is that not being mentioned? After reading Wikipedia policy I accept this was in violation and will not do this again. This has already been dealt with and has not been an issue since. I firmly reject that I created any copyright violations and find this charge completely baseless. I fully understand that I violated 3RR and apologize. However this block is not based on this charge but ones that are unsubstantiated, including WP:PLAG which explicitly states a user should not be blocked. Again I apologize and will work to correct these but first I have repeatedly asked for clarification of the policy as I do not believe all of these are in violation but were made in good faith as are all my edits.

Decline reason:

I share the opinions of JamesBWatson above me regarding your editing, and this unblock request addresses none of those issues. In addition, you have repeatedly been told what the problem with your edits was, and your refusal to listen shows no signs of letting up; that being the case, I'm disabling talkpage access; e-mail WP:BASC or use WP:UTRS for future unblock requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:26, 6 September 2012 (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.

It was a mistake on my part to write "Even if it is true that neither source mentions Spencer, that is not justification for removing the whole paragraph", and I apologise for that. However, the fact remains that you wrote "That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph", which is demonstrably untrue. I did not, as you put it, "provide this evidence", because it was there to be seen by anyone who looked at the cited sources. For example, the paragraph you removed said "...the satellite record erroneously showed a net global cooling trend, at odds with the radiosonde and surface record. A number of corrections ... have been made since been made bringing the UAH "lower troposphere temperature" data closer to agreement with other temperature records." Looking at the cited paper by T. M. L. Wigley et al, I see "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected", and in the abstract to the paper by Wentz1 & Schabel I see "Here we identify an artificial cooling trend in the satellite-derived temperature series caused by previously neglected orbital-decay effects. We find a new, corrected estimate of +0.07 K per decade for the MSU-based temperature trend, which is in closer agreement with surface temperatures. We also find that the reported7 cooling of the lower troposphere, relative to the middle troposphere, is another artefact caused by uncorrected orbital-decay effects." Both of those seem to me to be supporting some of the information you deleted, contrary to your claim that you "could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph" (my emphasis). As for "The sources were not dismissed as not reliable but not relevant to the paragraph", you stated that you could find no reliable sources to support any of the information in the paragraph, which means that you thought either that they did not support the information or that they were unreliable. I first dealt with the former possibility ("both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph") and then dealt with the latter, by stating that there were no grounds a regarding them as unreliable.
It is true that the actual wording of your claim of not being warned was "MastCell gave no warning", not "nobody gave any warning", but are we seriously being asked we to regard that as a meaningful distinction? After you have been repeatedly warned about something by different editors and taken part in discussions in response to the warnings, are we to think that you seriously think you can't be blocked because none of those warnings were given by the blocking administrator?
Concerning the denial that you have infringed copyright, as you surely must know, User:ThePowerofX/sandbox lists four cases where you have copied text from other sources. The content from "The Australian" is covered by http://www.theaustralian.com.au/help/termsconditions, which states, among other things, "You may download and view content or print a copy of material on this Site for personal, non-commercial use provided you do not modify the content in any way (including any copyright notice). All rights not expressly granted under these terms of use are reserved by News. Unless expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, or republish anything you find on the Site without the copyright or trademark owners’ permission." Your use did not comply with the requirement not to modify the content, nor do I think that publishing on Wikipedia can be regarded as "personal" use. The otehr excerpts which you copied were from pages each of which contained one or other of teh following two copyright notices: "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. ©2012 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved." and "© 2012 Newsmax Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved". I would be interested to see your explanation of why your use did not infringe copyright, rather than simply your statement that you "firmly reject" that you did so and "find this charge completely baseless", without any explanation why. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Full Paragraph: [27] "For many years Spencer, along with John R. Christy, has maintained an atmospheric temperature record derived from satellite microwave sounding unit measurements, commonly called the "UAH" record record (see also satellite temperature record). This was once controversial as until the late 1990s the satellite record erroneously showed a net global cooling trend, at odds with the radiosonde and surface record. A number of corrections (mostly minor) have been made since been made bringing the UAH "lower troposphere temperature" data closer to agreement with other temperature records. The most significant correction, demonstrated in a 1998 paper by Frank Wentz and Matthias Schabel of RSS, was to correct for orbital decay of the MSU satellites."
Wigley et al.. "Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected"
Wigley et al. does not mention "Spencer", does not mention he maintained any record with Christy, does not mention any "controversy", does not mention "late 1990s", does not mention "erroneously showed a net global cooling trend", does not say UAH was at odds with radiosonde (actually says they both show little or no warming which is contradictory to what was on Spencer's BLP), does not mention "mostly minor corrections", does not mention "The most significant correction". --JournalScholar (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wentz1 & Schabel "Here we identify an artificial cooling trend in the satellite-derived temperature series caused by previously neglected orbital-decay effects. We find a new, corrected estimate of +0.07 K per decade for the MSU-based temperature trend, which is in closer agreement with surface temperatures. We also find that the reported7 cooling of the lower troposphere, relative to the middle troposphere, is another artefact caused by uncorrected orbital-decay effects."
Wentz1 & Schabel does not mention "Spencer" (except as a name in a paper cited), does not mention he maintained any record with Christy, does not mention any "controversy", does not mention "late 1990s", paper does mention cooling trend but from 1979 to 1995, does not mention "mostly minor corrections", does not mention "The most significant correction". This paper has nothing to do with Spencer's BLP but is a paper fit for discussion on the Wikipedia page for the UAH satellite temperature dataset where it is already properly cited. Once all the words and sentences are removed that cannot be verified by the sources you are left with an effectively meaningless paragraph not applicable to Spencer's BLP. --JournalScholar (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can what I explicitly stated not be taken as meaningful? You cannot just reinterpret what I meant. Regardless I was only referring to MastCell not warning me. This was the first time I had an administrator not attempt to talk with me before acting which is why I made that statement. I have not denied that Dougweller did not warn me and I did not realize he was an administrator. Again this was for the 3RR 24 hour block. --JournalScholar (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated I was under the assumption that those sentences were each inline cited and attributable to the source, they would fall under fair use due to the limited amount of text (single sentence or paraphrased sentence) and explicitly clear source attribution, especially relating to scholarship, and research which is what Wikipedia is about. The Wikipedia policy WP:PLAG seems very clear about discussing this and not blocking the editor. Again I would be willing to go over these with someone who specializes in this area. This whole argument seems very odd as no one discussed this with me before, no one reported this before. --JournalScholar (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not happy that you have chosen to fragment my post, breaking it up to put your comments within it. However, for now I will leave it like that, while reserving the right to undo your refactoring of my message if I decide it will be helpful to do so. I will mention just one aspect of what you have just done. You have yet again done something which you have a history of doing, namely shifting your ground when what you have said turns out to be unjustifiable. You unambiguously stated that the references you removed from the Spencer article did not support any of the information in that paragraph. When I point out that they did do so, you shift your ground onto arguing that they did not support particular details (e.g. "does not mention 'Spencer' (except as a name in a paper cited)", "does not mention 'late 1990s' ", etc). Choosing particular details which are not mentioned in the sources (if they aren't: for one of them I have seen only the abstract, so I don't know) does not in any way detract from the fact that anyone who looks at those sources can see that it is blatantly false to state that they did not support any of the information in the paragraph you removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Fine, I restored your message. I was just attempting to address them in each paragraph. The whole point of the Spencer edit was whether I was justified in editing it off of Spencer's BLP and I more than adequately demonstrated that. The "details" I mentioned make the whole paragraph effectively meaningless and do not justify it remaining on Spencer's BLP. Yes, fine some of those words appear in those sources but not in the context presented in the paragraph and most importantly NOT discussing Spencer. Therefore was I justified in removing it? --JournalScholar (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed that you are only concerned about justifying your edits. At a certain point, you need to trust that if you are mostly alone in your understanding of a policy, it is probably not the standard interpretation of that policy.
There is a dearth of curiosity and foresight in your answers. Earlier, I asked you to justify a couple of edits so that the community could get a better understanding of your reasoning. I think you ought to devote some energy toward explaining how you would be able to edit collaboratively if you were unblocked. Do you think your understanding of Wikipedia policies will continue to place you in conflict with other editors? --Jprg1966 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent some long time reading through this thread, but will not atempt to tread on the toes of other admins who have spent more time here than I. But I will ask you one question; do you truly think that continuing to argue the point with very senior admins is the right way to get unblocked?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


To the admin that blocked this guy's Talk page access[edit]

I know this comment won't win me any friends on Wikipedia, and it may inadvertently give JournalScholar some misguided idea that I support some aspect of their editing. However, you do not block a person's access to their User Talk Page because they aren't listening or aren't hearing the reasons. The only reason you block a person's Talk page access is if they are continuing the same behavior that led to a block in the first place, i.e. "rapid-fire removal of sourced content", at least that's what the block log says. Since there is no sourced content to remove on this user's Talk page, please unblock the Talk page access. You're not required to debate the user here or force them to understand you. In fact, by taking away their ability to discuss the issue with other editors, you may be making it harder for this user to actually start to understand the problem. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. One, any admin (including me) can restore talkpage access at any time, so nothing's permanent here. Two, I left e-mail enabled for a reason. Finally, and most importantly, admins are absolutely permitted to remove someone's talkpage access if it's becoming clear that the user has no intention of understanding what the problem is or any willingness whatsoever to fix it. I listed a couple alternatives above for JournalScholar to take, so the door isn't permanently shut; however, I didn't see any value in continuing to allow this talkpage to be used as a platform for refighting already-lost battles. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where "intention of understanding" or "willingness to fix" is a requirement for adding someone's User Talk page to the block. I can see where such behavior might lead to an extension of the block itself, but I see no justification for it in WP:BLOCK, leading to a loss of User Talk page access. I think this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Block power. If a user is limited to their own Talk page and nowhere else, they can hardly be a disruption to the entire project. We create topic bans to reduce disruptions to a topic, when a user is blocked, and can only access their Talk page, what is left for them to disrupt? Blocks do not require an acknowledgement from the editor that they understand or care to understand the administrator's rationale for a block. The only requirement is that the editor stop disruptive behavior in the project. This does not require an editor to bow or submit to a demand that they comprehend the issue through the blocking admin's eyes. It is a rare occasion that calls for a block on the editor's own Talk page. Please reconsider the extent of this block. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avanu, you're not helping. These things should be taken up elsewhere, like the blocking admin's talk page--not here, turning it into a platform. And talk page blocks, Avanu, are not rare at all. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read over these comments, and while I have some problems with the tone taken by the original plaintiff (as I expressed in the earlier ANI thread), I see no reason to adjust this block. Blocks (including for talk page access) have been issued and endorsed, and unblock requests denied, by a who's who of admins: Favonian, Max Semenik, Beeblebrox, MastCell, John, JamesBWatson, and The Blade of the Northern Lights. I suppose I was asked to come here (editor's email is still enabled, for ArbCom purposes) because I showed some hesitance when the initial complaint was filed, but the plethora of edits that show a combative attitude have swayed me. BLP and OR policy are misapplied to enforce a POV, that much is clear; BLP violations were put up in user space; editor refuses to acknowledge that they might be wrong or that their attitude is non-productive (and that basically is a requirement to be unblocked); and in general, Wikipedia is treated as a battleground. Like the aforementioned admins, I do not think this user can contribute to the project, and I agree with the removal of talk page access: a talk page is not a place to infinitely rehash the same accusations. Sorry, JournalScholar, but given your comments here and elsewhere I can do nothing for you. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JournalScholar&oldid=1144945860"