User talk:ClimateOracle

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, ClimateOracle, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wintonian (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --ClimateOracle (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

I appear to have been blocked by TenOfAllTrades based on the duck test. Given this he should be able to tell me who my sock master is. Since I am not a sock as a CU will confirm he has blocked me based on essentially no evidence. Therefore I can only assume that I have been blocked because he disagrees with my POV on the William M. Connolley BLP. This is, therefore, inherently a content dispute for which he is using his administrative tools to enforce his POV.

TenOfAllTrades alleges abuse of multiple accounts. Where is his evidence of this? What other accounts have I supposedly used and how does he know that was me? --ClimateOracle (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

TenOfAllTrades alleges abuse of multiple accounts but has neither provided any evidence thereof nor indicated who I am supposedly a sock puppet of. Therefore one can only conclude that he has blocked me because of my POV and not because I have violated any policies. I wish to be unblocked to appeal my case at WP:AN and, failing that, to ArbCom so that TenOfAllTrades' use of administrative tools may be properly assessed. Is this project in the habit of blocking users for their POV based on no evidence of any wrong doing? Hopefully not.

Decline reason:

We weren't born yesterday. Email ArbCom via the links on that page if you so desire. NW (Talk) 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user'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).

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

Request reason:

No evidence has been presented to support the allegation that I am abusing multiple accounts. I should be allowed to rebut any such evidence or I should be unblocked for a lack of it. I agree not to edit outside of WP:AN and/or the ArbCom pages and only for discussion directly related to this block. Please unblock me so that I might have a fair hearing on this matter.

Decline reason:

This is NOT a court of law - "rebut evidence", "fair hearing" are not a part of the community process. You have been advised that you are to e-mail ArbCom directly, no administrators will remove this block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (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.

How do you know so much?

ClimateOracle, if you are not a returning user or a sock, how do you know so much about Wikipedia? It is not typical for a new user to know enough about Wikipedia culture to make the kinds of edits you make, i.e. citing diffs, adding references, and using very Wikipedia-specific lingo ("rv: This material is well sourced per WP:BLP, WP:BLPSPS, WP:RS, and WP:V."). You obviously know your way around here, so your denials are highly suspicious. Not to mention the fact that you jumped directly into a debate with a long history of abusive sock-puppetry -- add it all up and the evidence is pretty compelling that something is not completely right here.

If you are truly a new user, and not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, then how do you explain your extensive knowledge of both Wikipedia culture and the CC debate? ATren (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I am familiar with Wikimedia projects does not mean that I have edited using another account in en.wikipedia.org, but it does explain how I came up to speed in this space quickly. No mysterious boogie man is required. A checkuser should be able to confirm that I have not been editing with other accounts on this project.

That the Fred Singer BLP has been a source of abuse has been mentioned extensively in the mainstream media several times and that William M. Connolley is considered to be a principal source of that abuse has been highlighted in those very same sources. I recently came across such an article which had been written some time ago. That sparked my interest so I read up on the Fred Singer talk page. That's where I came to know that Connolley was trying to push the word retired into that article and considered it a POV problem sufficient to tag the article.

Upon looking for a source to substantiate the unsourced claim in the current William M. Connolley BLP that he quit the climate profession in December 2007 turned up the RealClimate page I referenced.

How did I pick up the local lingo? No mystery. I read the talk pages for Fred Singer and William M. Connolley. There are more than enough references to the policies contained there and it's not like it takes a lot of time to read them. Any reasonably intelligent person could do it. Note that the argument I am raising is the same argument Connolley raised on Singer's page. How hard is it to use his own reasoning on his own BLP? Connolley provided the framework, I simply extended it to his own page.

The same is true for the citation templates. There are lots of examples of how to use them on these pages. Is it really that hard to believe that someone could copy and paste an example and then edit it for the new source? Not really I shouldn't think. How does everyone else do it?

All of this is easily explainable, unless you are wanting to find boogie men in the form of sock puppets around every corner. This block appears to be born out of hysteria and paranoia. If I am a sock puppet then who is my master? If you don't know who my master is, what makes you think I have abused multiple accounts? Are you going to block every new user who argues against the prevailing POV on such flimsy evidence that they are merely computer literate? That's a sad state of affairs. --ClimateOracle (talk) 03:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this while reviewing unblock requests, so haven't formed an opinion yet. Just one technical note: CheckUser cannot prove a negative, i.e. not a sockpuppet. So you might as well stop asking for that. Cheers. —DoRD (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But who has the burden of proof here? ATren (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CO, what did you expect to happen here? You show up editing like an old timer, register a provocative username, dive into the most contentious topic area of the encyclopedia -- an area infested with persistent socks -- and proceed to edit the BLP of the most controversial editor in that topic area. If you do know your way around here and you've been following this debate, did you really think this was a wise approach? I have no idea if you're a sock, but in your first few dozen edits, you acted like one. Now I don't particularly agree with the block here (I would have preferred to wait for CU results) but I can relate to why they did block you.

In any case, if you really aren't Scibaby or some other sock, I suggest you email arbcom and make your case, because (as someone said above) CU can't really vindicate you. That's not necessary right, but it's true. ATren (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expected to come here and be able to edit articles in accordance with Wikipedia Policies. Isn't this the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? If computer literate people show up here are they not allowed to edit like anyone else? Apparently not given that I have been blocked and the only rationale provided thus far is that I am computer literate and able to read the policy pages. Given my experience thus far I would have to conclude that the complaints I have read in the mainstream media are completely true. As far as I can tell the edits I made are completely within policy and yet they have been reverted and I have been indefinitely blocked simply for having made them. No one has made any policy based objections that I am aware of. Those who have blocked me have only displayed assumptions of bad faith based on the fact that I am computer literate. I guess only illiterates are allowed to edit this wiki?

This is an extremely poor showing for this community, IMHO. --ClimateOracle (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet Investigation

Looking over the current state of the sockpuppet investigation it seems that Cool Hand Luke already looked into the check user information of the people listed and is unconvinced that I am a Scibaby sock puppet and asks whether I too should be unblocked. I think yes but given my rejections above I have decided to go ahead and appeal to Arbcom via email.

It seems that the only evidence one has to present to have people blocked as a sockpuppet of scibaby is "the usual" which seems to have no discernible definition beyond just being an unfounded accusation. In response I hereby assert the usual responses that successfully get one unblocked from such baseless accusations. --ClimateOracle (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you are or are not a sockpuppet of Scibaby is irrelevant — as the blocking administrator, I can affirm that you were not blocked on that basis. Clearly, you are an experienced editor who created a new account in order to conceal your previous identity and edit the BLP of an individual who has been subject to extensive harrassment, and whose article is further covered by the climate change probation. You were given three choices: a) to acknowledge your previous account(s); b) to not edit in highly-controversial areas covered by general probations; or c) to be blocked. You chose c). If you believe that your block was based on a misidentification as Scibaby, you are wholly mistaken. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, you state "Clearly, you are an experienced editor who created a new account in order to conceal your previous identity and edit the BLP of an individual who has been subject to extensive harrassment..." I don't see how you can discern this without providing any evidence to back up such a claim. It is possible that this user did in fact bother to educate himself about wikipedia policies and procedures before he started editing. I did this myself before I ever edited. What previous identity do you believe this user is trying to hide. At least that would be a start. This is ridiculous and things like this are why good editors are leaving the project in droves. Elhector (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you get over yourself, ten. You have no evidence of sockpuppetry, SPI found no evidence of sockpuppetry - and here you are issuing ultimatums to new users about where in the encyclopedia they may edit. How about the fourth option of you providing evidence for your accusations, or just keeping quiet? Weakopedia (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the SPI page

"You need to provide evidence showing the accounts or IPs are likely to be sock-puppets and acting in a disruptive or forbidden manner, which other users will then assess. If there is no evidence showing forbidden sock-puppetry, then nothing will happen and the case is likely to be speedily closed by the SPI clerks." Weakopedia (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is obscene, here we have an admin blocking a user without proof that he is a sock. And then blocking him from editing his own talk page so he can`t even defend himself is beyond the pale. TOAT you do not get to demand that editors do not edit CC related pages just because you suspect he is a sock, you should unblock this user and say sorry for your actions mark nutley (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, wait a second. So you are sure he is a sock, but you don't know who? That's like jailing somebody because they look like a murderer - you don't know there's been a murder, but they sure do like they killed someone, so best lock them up to be sure. So I gather that if I were to ever bother to set up an account, I would be subject to ye olde banhammer just because I managed to learn about how WP works before bothering to set up that account? Furthermore, is there some rule I missed somewhere about what new editors can and cannot edit that your demand b) is based on? Because this sounds like no one can articulate why a factual addition - based on sources already in the article - was 'disruptive', so you are inventing your own rules and policies on the fly to get rid of people you don't like. Probably because you are inventing your own rules and policies on the fly to get rid of people you don't like. --24.255.183.62 (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (also 69.29.15.242 - I wouldn't want to get my IP banned for not pointing THAT out)[reply]