Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 20:00, 22 January 2010 (→Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident: - note of caution). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello Jpat34721! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Getting started Misplaced Pages tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

==An Automated Message from HagermanBot==

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 01:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CRU notification

The reference came from RealClimate itself, making it a primary source. If it had come from a secondary source, I would've kept the existing language. I wanted to make sure that it was clear that what we had was only RealClimate's word for something that RealClimate did. Just being overly cautious. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A word to the wise

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do mean this as just a friendly warning. But you need to be careful about editing the CRU article - this edit, for example, is a revert, since you removed the tag. When there's a 1RR limit on an article, it's easy to step over it inadvertently. Guettarda (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've reviewed the situation following a post to the Functionaries mailing list and have determined that I made an error here. Jpat34721 is not a sockpuppet of Scibaby (talk · contribs) and I made a mistake here. I'm really sorry about that. Lifting the block now - Alison 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that we're sorry for any inconvenience that the block has caused. Thank you for taking the time to email the mailing list regarding the block. —Dark 08:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Although I do understand how hard it is to identify sock-puppeteers, I think WP needs to work a bit on the process. The rush to judgment in this case was astounding. Jpat34721 (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

Even though you are not Scibaby, you must remain civil. Do not accuse others of rushing to judgement when they were misled by a checkuser. Do not state that others are using a checkusers confirmation that you were Scibaby as an "excuse to reinsert POV." Further, since Guettarda already self reverted here, you certainly owe them an apology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:CrisO was not mislead by checkuser. He made the accusation against me that caused CU to be run by another admin (see above). The "evidence" he presented was laughably flimsy.

Multiple experienced editors believed it was possible you were a sockpuppet. I am one of them. The amount of time that sockpuppets waste on the Global Warming article is outrageous, and you coming back from a three year hiatus was just too convient. Could you please just come clean about whatever your other accounts were, at this point? Hipocrite (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Un-f'n-believable. You lecture me about civility and then come here and make another false accusation against me? For the record, I have had exactly one account on WP, and you are way out of line to suggest otherwise. Jpat34721 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to be assured of that, Hipocrite's question was badly phrased and should not have read like an accusation. Trust all round will cooperate in future. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the ratio of sockpuppetry on Global Warming articles is directly related to the fanantical approach that AGW proponents have towards blocking any opposing views. Sockpuppets are the result of an underlying problem, not the cause of existing problems. Arzel (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment attacks other editors, and fails to assume good faith as required by policy. I suggest that you take no notice of it. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a survivor of the SciBaby hysteria myself, I feel your pain. A number of people have complained about the ease with which people are accused and checkusered as SciBaby sock or meat puppets. You may want to be aware of a page that is being started to capture the stories of those who have been impacted by this effort here. If you are so inclined you might want to contact the author of that article and share your story. --GoRight (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrite, you are out of line. Checkuser has confirmed that Jpat is not Scibaby, continued accusations to the contrary is not at all helpful. I suggest you take a deep breath and come back with an apology. The lack of good faith is astounding. —Dark 23:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I can also state here that Jpat34721 isn't socking at all right now, Scibaby or otherwise - Alison 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement request

Given that you have continued to edit after the above notifications, I have requested enforcement against you at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Request_concerning_Jpat34721. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the fact that I took your advice and self-reverted the edit you claimed was a revert JPatterson (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you didn't. Hipocrite (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that because someone reverted my edit before I saw your comments here, my self-rv didn't show up in the history. JPatterson (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Following Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning Jpat34721, you are banned from the pages Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident until 2010-02-13. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert Question

I have run afoul of rules on reverts (1RR, 3RR) which I can't make hide nor hair of. The only reference I've found is which states "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors.".

To me "undoing the effect" and "reversing the actions" and "restoring to " implies a rather large change. In the context of an article on probation though it appears this doesn't apply. In the action that resulted in my banning, it seems to be interpreted as any change to another editors work. Try as I might, I can't figure out where this interpretation comes from. Any help? JPatterson (talk) 06:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:3RR, " revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part" (emphasis added). This includes any case where the reverted portion is substantial enough to be a potential object of editorial controversy (depending on the context). Hth, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed that. It does seem to be in conflict with WP:Revert quoted above. I would suggest that the warning template at the top of the article edit page (which speaks only of 1RR (not 3RR) be linked to the definition you provided. WP:1RR (which I finally found, it's not linked on the template) ironically enough advises users to "See Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle." That didn't work out so well for me. :>)

I would like to make these suggestions, do you know what the proper forum would be. Thanks JPatterson (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For TPWs: discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Proposed Change to the Article Probation Warning. JPatterson - I added the in whole or in part language you suggested to WP:Reverting. I still encourage you to become involved in other areas of the encyclopedia, but this particular discussion is probably a mitigating factor if you should choose to appeal the above article ban. The probation itself is barely older than your return to Misplaced Pages, so there are probably still some kinks to work out. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I need a WP break anyway- I think I'll sit out for a week before addressing an appeal. Thanks for your efforts here. I think the changes you made will make the restrictions easier to understand for all involved. JPatterson (talk) 20:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I tried out the new process and there's still a problem. On the edit notice we link to Help:Reverting which contains yet another, even more benign definition of revert, and not Misplaced Pages:Reverting which contains the new language. I suggest we change the link or (add the plain text). Helping edititors to revert is probably not what was intended in this context :>) JPatterson (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Jehocham, I found this from you on WP:AN "It was very clear that Jpat34721 disliked his article-ban, and sought out the "leader" of those he perceived in opposition, and went head hunting.". Can you accept this statement as my offense in a nutshell, in lieu of the statement I asked you for above? If so, I can accept that. As I've stated elsewhere, given the timing my COI action was ill-conceived and gave the appearance of retaliation. I apologize for the disruption my bad judgment has caused. JPatterson (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary for you to apologize or admit any sort of "guilt". We don't have that concept here. I accept your statement and I hope you'll get involved in editing other articles. Editors with relatively few edits are often best to start editing less contentious subjects and learn the ropes so they don't accidentally get into trouble. You've only got a few hours left on the block. Let's let that time pass, and then you can go on your way. The discussion is winding down. Others may ask you (formally or informally) to steer clear of WMC. That's probably a good idea in any event. Best regards, Jehochman 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

True 'dat. No hard feelings JPatterson (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jpat, sorry for the slow response. No problem, and thanks for staying cool. Sometimes the tides at Misplaced Pages sweep up editors like little pebbles... I think that's about what happened here. Best of luck in the future, Mackan79 (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Retrospective

I want to jot down some thoughts on the hornets nest I seem to have stepped in.

Let me say that I love the idea behind WP. I think what it has accomplished is phenomenal. There is no doubt however, that its image for objectivity has been tarnished of late, especially among the plurality of Americans who self-identify as conservative. I am afraid it won't be long before Misplaced Pages is seen with the same derision in these circles as Fox now is with progressives. This is not due, as some allege, to some systemic bias. The articles that have reached stability are for the most part virtuous in their objectivity. Rather, in my view, it's mainly due to the poor quality of "in the news" hot-topic articles. Misplaced Pages is built on consensus and consensus takes time. In the meantime, the work product looks like a cafeteria after a food fight because, well, because that's what it is.

My first contribution to WP was on another raging controversy, the NSA warrantless surveillance food fight. During that experience, I was told by many that I had a knack for writing objective prose. I think I was a positive force in forging consensus there and my efforts helped to get the POV tags removed. Recently my son showed me the Climategate (sorry Hipocrite, your title is too long to remember) article. I was appalled at the one-sided view of the controversy it presented and at the all-out war raging on the talk page. Given my prior experience, I thought I could help. But it now seems that newcomers are viewed with suspicion by the pack around here, especially if they dare venture into controversial topics. I wasn't here more than a few hours before I was accused and then banned as a sockpuppet. After that got cleared up, I was re-accused an hour later, coincidentally I'm sure, by the same user who brought the recent sanction proceedings against me. During the past two weeks, my three year absence and single article focus have been brought up over and over again in various forums to cast aspersions on my motives for participating here. Wow, things have sure changed around here while I was gone. WP:AGF seems to have fallen by the wayside.

The article probation concept, I fear, has only exacerbated the problem. The 1RR rule is death by a thousand cuts, drawn out and painful. While it may tamp down the edit wars and provide a veneer of comity, the war rages on below the surface. Strategy becomes more important than quality. Cabals form, tag teams keep a watchful eye, allies heat up the admin boards with their spirited defenses of cohorts who have fallen into enemy hands (not that I'm complaining on that account). Probation also sets many traps for the newcomer (want to see my scars?) who are probably over-represented in articles that are in the news, and puts many more clubs into the hands of the experienced editors who know the ropes. Besides making for a lousy editing experience, all of this slows down the consensus process and results in an incohesive article cobbled together from "compromises", which in practice simply means each side gets to add equally to the bloat.

What to do? One possibility would be to create a new class of article dealing with "in the news" controversies with an assigned referee. Blasphemy I know. But a referee (think Editor at a newspaper or hardbound encyclopedia), could weigh in with an eye toward objectivity and cohesiveness, mediate disputes, help newcomers avoid the snares, keep an eye out for gatekeeping etc. The referee would move on after google news hits on the subject dropped below a predetermined threshold. Seems like a good idea to me. Anything would be an improvement on the current process. JPatterson (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the apology which was not necessary, but was nonetheless very welcome. I appreciate editing can get frustrating at times and that the rules on reverts are complicated (which is why I often ask someone else to check them). --BozMo talk 22:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Golly

You mus be one a dem librals, usin' big ol' scahhntific wurds laaahk "fallacy" an' "ergo".  ;-) ATren (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but I play one on TV :>)JPatterson (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Following discussion at User talk:2over0#procedural Question, Jpat34721 is unbanned from Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're treading on very dangerous ground with your latest thread on that talk page. I suggest you reconsider and move on to more productive topics. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)