User talk:Alex Dunbarton

February 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. – Joe (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

While I can certainly understand how Joe Roe might feel like I came here to cause Jess Wade distress or alarm, the fact remains I have done everything I could to follow Wikipedia policy to avoid just that, and I am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. I approached her politely in good faith on her talk page, and raised appropriate issues on the appropriate article talk pages. Unless someone is going to tell me otherwise from a position of authority or overwhelming consensus, my interpretations of the policies I mentioned to her are correct on all counts, and therefore if she has been distressed or alarmed by my polite reminders, that is not my responsibility.

I am explicitly allowed to track and raise issues relating to a single editor, where there is good reason to believe they are not following basic and serious policies, i.e. the rules governing what can be said by Wikipedia about real people, and who can write about them. While Wade obviously didn't agree with what I was saying, she never told me to go away, and if she had I would have respected it.

My contribution to the Clarice Phelps talk page has explicitly been welcomed by other editors as constructive, and I was even thanked for it. While a couple have contested the facts, at no point has any other editor even suggested that what I was doing was wrong in the sense of harassing Wade, so I find this surprise enforcement action, marked as being about protecting her from a harasser, to be extreme if not capricious.

In immediate terms, this block has prevented me from making important additions to the timeline being constructed at the Clarice Phelps talk page, specifically, the very first entry on that timeline should be that (unless anyone knows different) the very first place this claim appeared anywhere in the public realm, was in the Wikipedia biography published by Wade. And it did not have a source.

I cannot conceive how anyone acting in the best interests of Wikipedia would think noting that can be construed in any way as an attempt to cause undue distress to Wade. She may well feel distressed at having her mistakes highlighted in the place most appropriate to fixing them, and in ways designed to prevent future occurrences, but as I have already said, that does not equate to this being a case of her being harassed, and I do not deserve to be sanctioned for it.

I have to believe this is simply a mistaken act by one individual perhaps being over enthusiastic in their desire to protect individuals while forgetting their duty as an Administrative account should also be about upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, but if others know different (I can see Joe Roe is a sitting member of the Arbitration Committee), then I hope they will make this plain. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As noted below, you are very familiar with Wikipedia policies and processes for such a new account. I have great difficulty believing that this is your first account. It is true that you can monitor the actions of other editors, but when you create an account for what seems to be the expressed purpose of doing so, it is suspicious and could have a chilling effect. From what I have seen there also seems to be some off-wiki activity related to this matter. In conclusion, I see no reason to remove the block and believe that Joe Roe correctly applied it. I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2020 (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 support Alex Dunbarton's request for review. Please understand, I do not dispute ARBCOM administrator Joe Roe's determination of hounding. However, indefinitely blocking—without warning—a new account after it has made a total of just seven edits to three talk pages is premature. Specifically, Dunbarton's contributions range from constructive to arguably impolite to mildly threatening but are in no instance abusive. While there is no doubt that Jesswade88 is an immensely valuable asset to Wikipedia as a prolific editor and to Wikimedia as a promotional public figure, I fear such a rush to exclude a newbie for daring to criticize her may be seen as overprotective favoritism. Dr. Wade is no stranger to criticism, and has shown in her replies to Alex Dunbarton an ability to more than hold her own in any dispute over content or editorial conduct. At the very least, this block should be temporary rather than permanent, to allow Alex Dunbarton to reflect on his approach and more closely familiarize himself with applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. NedFausa (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"a new account after it has made a total of just seven edits to three talk pages"

I do not believe that any new editor here would behave in such a manner, demonstrating such familiarity with WP and WP process. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: are you suggesting that Alex Dunbarton is not a new editor, but rather a sockpuppet? If so, I believe the proper forum would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Unless I missed it, ARBCOM administrator Joe Roe did not indefinitely block this account as a suspected sockpuppet. NedFausa (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you're the one who raised the idea, perhaps you ought to go down that route?

I'm just sat here in amazement, at an editor so skilled that they can go from inexperience to expertise in just a handful of edits, and yet they've already managed to get themselves indef blocked in the same time. WP just isn't ready for such powers. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: with all due respect, your snark is not helpful to this discussion. NedFausa (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you think that advocating the unblocking of Alex Dunbarton somehow is? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: naturally I defer to your expertise. If you believe that my support of Alex Dunbarton's request for review is improper, the remedy would be WP:ANI. NedFausa (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Alex Dunbarton' is clearly not a first time Wikipedia editor. Neither this Wikipedia account – or their parallel Twitter account, where they spend their time insulting everyone who does anything positive on Wikipedia (with a particular focus on tweets that mention me) – indicates that they have constructive intentions for the site. It is totally your call NedFausa, and of course, irrespective of your decision, 'Alex Dunbarton' will simply create a new account with a different username where he'll tell me and anyone else who listens that I don't understand Wikipedia policies. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jesswade88: you seem to be under the misimpression that I am an administrator. To the contrary, I am like you merely an extended confirmed user—albeit unlike you I do not enjoy autopatrolled or new page reviewer privileges. So this is definitely not my call. As for Alex Dunbarton's alleged "parallel Twitter account," I believe that has nothing to do with the block we are discussing on this thread. NedFausa (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just mean, believe what you want. If you think 'Alex Dunbarton' is a "newbie" editor, then that's your call. And similarly, if you think someone making a Twitter and Wikipedia account just to criticise an individual editor are totally unrelated and reasonable incidents, then that's your call too. Have a great evening. Jesswade88 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to unblock if you committed not to interact with Jesswade88 any further. Otherwise, seven edits is enough to see that making an account solely to follow around and comment on another editor is not the action of someone who's here to help write an encyclopaedia (it also very much looks like a duck to me too). – Joe (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're going to struggle convincing anyone that is how you help write Wikipedia. Noting that you said write, not correct, or prevent it doing harm. I approached her the way policy expects, for the reasons policy allows. Your personal interpretations won't change that. If perceptions matter to you more than reality, then consider how it looks for you to be a member of Women in Red, like Wade. I reject your offer, ignoring as it does virtually every important issue in play, except of course what would make Wade happy. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did not come here to harass Wade, only to avail myself of the permitted means to do things I am allowed to do for the good of Wikipedia and those it has the potential to harm, and an unbiased review would conclude that. Joe Roe has a conflict of interest, and 333dot drew conclusions before he had the evidence. He even assumed I had answered questions I had never been asked. Suffice to say, although nobody ever actually asked, I happily point out to those who have perhaps forgotten, it is possible in this day and age to be familiar with Wikipedia, without ever having been a participant. But some issues are just too important to simply sit back and write about. I am happy with any proposed resolution that balances Wade's need to feel safe, and everyone else's right to know she can be held accountable. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

From this unblock request and the lengthy post below, it is apparent that your only purpose for wanting to edit Wikipedia is to argue with someone else. As you are still attacking the other editor, as well as the blocking and reviewing admins, I'm turning off talk page access. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2020 (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.

Clearly this is taxing the Wikipedia administration. If it helps, as a gesture of good faith, I will give you some indication of what I would be working on next, which hopefully you will see has no real connection to Wade, and certainly couldn't be considered harassment, since her only interest in the matter is her long running personal investment in the retention and presentation of the Clarice Phelps biography on Wikipedia, as is well documented in the media.

It obviously should not be the case that touching upon matters she is personally invested in, but otherwise seems to have stopped editing directly, certainly for the purposes of debating Wikipedia policy as it pertains to that content, would be reason to prevent others from working towards ensuring accuracy of and public trust in Wikipedia over that content. Otherwise she could simply Tweet who she is displeased with on Wikipedia, for the reasons she is often displeased with people on Wikipedia, and they would be removed from the arena for allegedly harassing her.

I will pose the following questions to the talk page of that biography, with information that is either not being mentioned or has but seems to keep being ignored, for wide community consideration.....

1. Is Kit Chapman a reliable source for element discovery? His book does not back up his claims about Phelps, despite a personal Tweet and Amazon pre-publication synopsis that suggested it would. Is there any secondary coverage of Chapman as a science journalist/historian before the Phelps controversy hit the media? He has not, to my knowledge, made any comment since, other than express satisfaction at the recent reversal of the decision to keep the biography out of Wikipedia.

2. Is the ORNL a reliable source for element discovery outside of their laboratories? As detailed in Chapman's book, but surely also common knowledge, the discovery of superheavy elements is done in other laboratories around the world too, and it is naturally the case that each is competing against the other for credit and wider recognition of their efforts and credentials.

3. Who was the source of the nomination of Clarice Phelps to the IUPAC "Periodic Table of Younger Chemists" and what vetting did it undergo before selection/publication? It was published after the media controversy surrounding the nature of Phelps's role and whether Wikipedia was right or wrong to deny recognition of a young female African American scientist, and is as far as I can tell, the first instance of it being categorically stated by someone other than Chapman, in terms of potential reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, that Phelps is "the first African American to be involved with the discovery of an element". There is no author attributed to the claim.

4. Outside of their presumed high reliability in all matters chemistry, specifically their peer reviewed journals and indeed their actual periodic table publications and related standards, is the IUPAC "Periodic Table of Younger Chemists", given its stated purpose and function, a reliable source for the first mention of such a claim in Wikipedia? Their page that explains what that initiative is all about links back to the Wikipedia article on the timeline of discovery of elements, without any disclaimer, suggesting even the person/s responsible for this initiative are perhaps not aware that Wikipedia cannot be assumed to be reliable for such things, due to issues like self-promotion, unreliable sources and citogenisis. It would be perhaps be prudent for anyone claiming this section of their website is a reliable source for this claim, to satisfy themselves that the claim has undergone the same editorial control as described here https://iupac.org/what-we-do/periodic-table-of-elements/ and if not, why not. Noting that it is not being denied that she was involved in the discovery, only whether she is correctly described as the "the first African American to be involved with the discovery of an element", something the preponderance of later reliable secondary sources independent of Phelps are still seemingly not happy to state without a qualifier.

Perhaps the above is enough to convince that all that is required to cover Wikipedia's liability (or to be precise, individual editors') here should this claim turn out to be unreliable and detrimental to persons or organisations in the future should an earlier candidate/team come to light, is a simple qualifier that this claim was attributable in the first instance, to the IUPAC website, first published apparently on 2 June 2019.

These are all questions of a serious and urgent nature all of the time on Wikipedia, but especially given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Clarice_Phelps

To be clear, if this sort of eminently constructive contribution to Wikipedia is considered de facto harassment of Wade, questions have to be asked, how can her contributions to this website, many of which seem to arise through private or semi-public Twitter communication with the likes of Chapman and Phelps, ever be vetted by anyone with the knowledge and time to do so, if they were not already here and busy working to help write it, and specifically writing it in ways Wade deems to be productive. It stretches the definition to assume this is what is meant by self-governing community. I don't necessarily have to make these sort of contributions here, but here on Wikipedia would be the logical place to start, given that self-governing nature.

If others want to use the above as a means to advance the conversation around the timeline of sources I proposed on that talk page in my continued enforced absence, they are welcome to do so. Presumably without my name attached, it will not be considered harassment, or at least as I understand the inferences above. Alex Dunbarton (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]