User talk:Thepm/Climate

Work in progress

Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The climate change pages have been battlegrounds in the past for editors, with regular edit wars occurring. I feel that Viriditas is causing damage to the goodwill that has developed in recent times. he has, for reasons that I cannot understand, badgered me, harassed and bullied me.

Incident One

1. Viriditas accuses Alex Harvey of "violation of general sanctions" and of being "a SPA used primarily to disrupt the topic of climate change." [1]
2. I suggest to Viriditas that his accusations are unfounded and continue to address the topic. [2]
3. Viriditas replies with an edit summary of "Merchants of Doubt". [3]
4. I am concerned that Viriditas is implying that I too am an SPA. I seek clarification from Viriditas that I have misunderstood his meaning. [4]
5. I also reply on the article talk page, requesting that "the discussion focuses on the topic, not the editors". [5]
6. On his talk page, Viriditas declines to clarify his comments. [6]
7. On his talk page, I accept that Viriditas will not clarify further and make general recommendations that on climate change related topics, one should "assume good faith, avoid personal comments and generally be even more civil than you would normally be." [7]
8. dave souza corrects me on a matter of fact at the article talk page. [8]
9. I accept the correction in good faith. [9]

I note here that I believe I was unfairly accused by Viriditas, that Viriditas did not show good faith and that Viriditas did not correct or clarify this accusation although he had an opportunity to do so.

Incident 2

1. I propose a substantial change and contraction of the lead for the article. [10]
2. There is unanimous agreement to my proposed change from 5 other editors. Sailsbystars - [11], TenofallTrades - [12], Alex harvey - [13], Tillman - [14], Dave Souza - [15]
3. On the basis of this broad agreement, I make the changes. [16]
4. Viriditas accuses me of "whitewashing of the lead section" and objects to "the misleading edit summary". [17]
5. I respond to Viriditas requesting specific edit suggestions and asking that re retract the comment "whitewashing". [18]

Incident 3

1. Over the following four days, 6 edits are made to the article, all by editors other than me and each one after discussion on the talk page.
2. One of these edits is made by Alex Harvey without discussion. I tell Alex Harvey "I would have preferred a chance to discuss that before you made the changes"
   1. Dave souza agrees, asks Alex Harvey to self revert and notes that while he has "some sympathy with the points made by Viriditas," he prefers "having a simple lead which we can always build on." [19]
3. Viriditas edits the lead section and posts on the talk page that he has done so. I point out that other editors have suggested edits on the talk page before making them. I revert Viriditas' changes (my second edit to the article).[20]
4. I ask Viriditas to discuss changes to the lead before making them on the talk page. [21]
5. Viriditas replies that "The last version of the lead was arrived at by the input of dozens of editors over more than a year. You unilaterally deleted it and added your own version" [22]
   1. Viriditas continues to believe that I change the lead "unilaterally" despite the fact that 5 other editors agreed to the change.

Note also

The following conversation took place on my talk page. [23]

In that, I am accused of abusing consensus, wikilawyering, abusing the discussion process, making edits that are "incredibly misleading and distorted the topic." I warn Viriditas that he should "moderate your tone". He seemed especially upset that the words "scientific misconduct" had been wikilinked and blamed me for this even though the wikilink had been added by Ed Poor and specifically left in by Dave Souza (note edit summary) [24]