User talk:IHaveAMastersDegree

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Welcome!

Hello, IHaveAMastersDegree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for American Geophysical Union. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptic

Hi. Thanks for your work clarifying ambiguous uses of "skeptic". In this edit, though, you changed the meaning so that the AI supports the former PM's and colleagues' skepticism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out my mistake! I misunderstood the original meaning when I tried to fix the "skeptic" ambiguity. Is there a way to modify it to fix both points of confusion? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me. In ongoing threaded discussions here, begin each post with one more colon (:) than the previous post - that creates stepped (progressively deeper) indenting. Have fun. If you need any help just ask at my talk page.

--20:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful tips! I've discovered that that a lot of folks just don't recognize the huge difference between scientific skepticism and global warming denial. I just created a user page to try to explain the reason that the term "climate skeptic" is ambiguous as well as lacking in neutrality. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your Many Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics"

Hi! I have seen your many revisions that change the term "skeptics" to "those who reject the evidence", "contrarian activists", "anti-climate-science", etc. I've seen that your user page and your edit comments explain that you would like to reduce ambiguity, but I'm afraid that the actual effect is to change people's descriptions to something that they could regard as false or pejorative. Is there any chance that you will reconsider all your revisions, revert the ones about skepticism, and cease?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you did not reply, and instead did more editing in the same vein, I take it that the answer is: "no chance". I have taken my concerns to the Administrators Noticeboard, which can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:IHaveAMastersDegree Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I'm certainly willing to revisit anything that one of these individuals considers to be false or pejorative. My intent is to conform with neutrality by avoiding a label and instead describe their position in the most accurate way (based on what has actually been written about an individual or what they have stated rather than assumption or synthesis). The term "climate skeptic" is a label, not a description of position. I expect that many individuals who have been defined by that term consider "climate skeptic" itself to be false and/or pejorative. If a label is to be used, I think it needs to have an unambiguous, mutually-agreed-upon definition. Unfortunately "climate skeptic" is not defined on Wikipedia. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to post this a few minutes ago but got a "edit conflict" message. It was written before I saw your last post. I think it is important to give people a chance to respond before making assumptions. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of arbitration committee sanctions on climate change articles

Please be advised - you are editing somewhat contentiously in a topic area subject to special sanctions and scrutiny due to a prior arbitration committee case - see WP:ARBCC for full details. This notification puts you on notice of that decision, and that standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force across all articles on this topic matter. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Climate change. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please let me know what I have done that is contentious. I will be happy to stop but I don't know what I did that is contentious. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking back at a random sample of your edits, and they're pretty variable: some of the early ones are frankly terrible, but you seem to be learning fairly fast. I would suggest going back through your edits and reverting any which you're not completely happy with. You might also find it useful to start editing in another area: it's rarely a good idea to edit on just one topic. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I admit that when I started I didn't really know what I was doing and have been learning as I go. I will take your advice and stop editing new material and will pass through everything I already edited again and either revert or revise (in a defensible way) what I did the first time. I've been getting some help and advice from others along the way, and I appreciate it. I probably won't be editing anything for a couple days as I have other things to do now.

Masters, if you are making contentious edits, especially to WP:BLP pages, you need BLP-grade RSs. Please read WP:BLP carefully, and refrain from editorializing. I have reverted a number of your recent edits. I second Prof. Jones suggestion that you try editing in another area, perhaps one less-controversial. --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is contentious about removing an ambiguous label and replacing it with an accurate description of opinion. The term "climate skeptic" and similar expressions are incorrect in the cases I edited and in some in some instances constitute pejorative editorializing and not supported by sources. Can you specify something I did that was actually contentious? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

As I've noted at ANI, the NCSE have a page covering misuse of the term denial and give a useful link to a paper by historian Spencer Weart: Global warming: How skepticism became denial – these are both good sources for article improvement. Care is needed, particularly where WP:BLP standards must be met, as you're obviously learning. In particular, it's important to keep to points covered explicitly in sources, and avoid "original research" applying the principles to other unnamed instances, or "synthesis" putting two [or more] sources together to show something that neither source shows individually. Care is also needed to assess sources for reliability – here it's useful to search Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For example, Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience looks potentially useful, The Conversation (website) has editorial control and appears reputable, the author is well qualified as a scientist. An archived discussion at RSN suggests care would be needed in how this website was used as a source: if disputed, a new question could be raised at RSN. So, good luck with future editing, hope I'm not going over things you already know well. The advice you got at one point of trying to edit in more than one topic area is good, it helps to build up experience and less contentious areas can provide light relief when controversial areas become tough going, but don't let that put you off improving articles! All the best, . dave souza, talk 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your research! This validates everything I've been saying and provides appropriate references to cite. The NCSE citation seems particularly authoritative. Do you think there will be any objection to the addition to their pages of the fact that Richard Lindzen an Steven Milloy are self-described deniers? If so, what could the objection possibly be? Both of those individuals, to their credit, seem to prefer the straightforward term "denier" to the somewhat weaselly "skeptic" word. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is to take great care not to go beyond the source, and it's often best to add an explanation on the article talk page at the same time as edits which might be contended. Don't be surprised if there are objections to these sources, but in my understanding Weart is a highly reputable science historian with particular expertise in climate change topics, and the NCSE is a good source for mainstream science. . dave souza, talk 21:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This closure emphasises the need for good sources and talk page discussion: if a majority of good quality sources do use the word skeptic, it's worth looking at the context to see if there is further description or qualification, and checking what other high quality sources say. . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's advice is good, and he's certainly more sympathetic to (what I see as) your views on CC. Good luck, and don't forget -- WP editing is supposed to be fun! Plus, no deadlines! Best for 2014, 22:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

James Delingpole

When something is removed as a BLP problem, please do not reinsert it without discussing first and getting a consensus that it is not a BLP problem. GB fan 16:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at WP:BLP/N. See the following thread.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you me?

Detective Dipshit seems to think so. You may proceed here if you want defend yourself against accusations of being my sockpuppet, the rules don't require you to, though, if you don't want to. --Kaj Taj Mahal (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I have filed an arbitration enforcement request against you, you may respond, Here Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Hi IHaveAMastersDegree. You have reverted material three times in the past 24 hours at James Delingpole. I strongly urge you to read WP:3RR and heed the advice in the discretionary sanction warning above. You should use talk page discussion to gain support for your edits, rather than simply reverting content that you object to. Edit warring, especially reverting more than three times in 24 hours, can result in being blocked from editing.- Mr X 03:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. Most of the reversions I have made have been corrections of my own mistakes. I pointed this out on talk already.

Indefinitely blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you because technical evidence connects you to a historical abusive editor of climate change articles. (Administrators: This is a checkuser block.) AGK [•] 23:13, 18 January 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet. I have never heard of User:Bearguardian or any other puppeteer. I am not connected to any other editor of climate change articles, abusive or not. The only name (including IP addresses) that I have ever used to edit climate change articles is User:IHaveAMastersDegree

Decline reason:

If we unblocked everyone we blocked as sockpuppets because they said they weren't, particuarly when there's technical evidence to back it up as there is in this case, we might as well not have a sockpuppetry policy. You'll have to have another checkuser review the evidence. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2014 (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.

{{Unblock on hold}}

Thank you User:Salvio giuliano. I just confirmed my email address and sent you email.. I tried to put a YGM notification on your talk page but I can't because I'm blocked. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I don't know the technical basis for why I was convicted of being a sockpuppet because that information was never shared with me. So apparently I have to give you more than a denial this time. Please check the email address I registered from. It is my professional, institutional address associated with the university that I'm affiliated with. I use it for my correspondence and have had that address since the 1990s. You can Google it and determine my actual identity and you can personally contact me if you wish. I hope that will be sufficient to prove that I'm flesh and blood and not a sockpuppet account that somebody created. I suppose I could then charged with being a puppeteer but I think you'd have to change the reason for being blocked and revisit the evidence. I'm not asking you to unblock everyone who says they are not a sockpuppet, but I suspect that the fraction of accused sockpuppets who used university or corporate emails that can be linked to a real person is vanishingly small. I think those editors' evidence should be given special consideration. Thank you for taking my appeal seriously. I want to keep editing.

Accept reason:

Thank you for contacting my colleague to confirm your identity. We can see now that you are not the individual we know operated the previous account, and I have therefore just unblocked your account. Please accept my sincerest apologies for disrupting your contribution to Wikipedia, and for any alarm or confusion caused. Best wishes. AGK [•] 12:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#IHaveAMastersDegree

For the record, the enforcement discussion was closed because AGK blocked you; I feel it is appropriate to resume the discussion since the block was done in error (which caused disruption to that discussion) and as such I have reopened that discussion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- for the record, Masters appears to believe he's off the hook: [2]. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I will address any concerns on the discussion page. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Climate change

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic-banned (per WP:TBAN) from everything that is both related to climate change and to a living person, for the duration of six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 21:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions about global-warming or climate-change "skeptics" or "deniers"

Your recent contributions shows you once again changing BLPs to label people as deniers, without making that clear in edit summaries or showing sources consistently. Is there any chance that you will reconsider all your revisions, and revert the ones about skepticism where there is no clear consensus for them on talk pages? I am pinging administrators who previously commented on this talk page about your skeptic edits (including one who seems to have supported you): Georgewilliamherbert dave souza GB fan Sandstein ), for whom this is just a heads-up that a revival might be happening. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. In the cases you mention, I changed changed the label from "skeptic" to "denier" because the term "skeptic" is ambiguous at best. In the years since we last addressed this issue on wikipedia, skeptics have repeatedly objected to the confusing misuse of the term "skeptic" to mean "denier". Many publications and news media (notably the New York Times, the Associated Press, and now the Guardian) agree with the skeptical community and have stated that they will no longer use the term "skeptic" to mean the opposite of what skeptics say that it means. I would be happy to pause my editing long enough to discuss this on talk pages and address your concern on a case-by-case basis.IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So please pause. Here's an obvious first case, since someone else already reverted your edit to Andrew Montford. All you have to do is go to the talk page, defend your edit with the argument you've just described, and see whether you get consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IHaveAMastersDegree: Given the prior arbitration enforcement (old, but you have a long history) you should really really think hard about how fast you want to go on this and whether you want to talk things over with other editors on talk pages first, and supply reliable sources alwyas.

I'm not a fan of those who are in some sense skeptical or in denial over climate change either, but Wikipedia policy on biographical articles is not extra flesible for righteous causes. It's intentionally consistent everywhere. You should strive to remember that policy and be extra careful here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have paused like I said I would. I will defend the changes case-by-case on the talk pages. In the 5 years or so since I was last active, a better understanding by the public and by journalists has emerged that the term "climate skeptic" is an intentionally-confusing and misleading euphemism for "climate change denier". It is no longer used by the most objective and responsible news organizations. I would argue that Wikipedia pages should reflect precise and current definitions of words. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable news sources for the specific terminology for a specific person, then that's legitimately includable. But find and provide those citations. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IHaveAMastersDegree: You commented on the Andrew Montford talk page here and here but you didn't try to defend your edit -- you didn't even mention it -- and your edit stays reverted. Is this all that you'll do when your other edits are reverted? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prod. My comments were intended to solicit responses and consensus for changes and 24 hours didn't seem like too long to wait given that most people have busy lives. Nevertheless I went ahead and made changes justified by yesterday's comment on the talk page. IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second warning. You added this despite saying you would pause and after being warned that you "should strive to remember [BLP] policy and be extra careful here". You ought to be aware that re-inserting contentious material without consensus is a BLP violation, and that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I think a DS alert is not required because you previously were "sanctioned within the area of conflict". Your edit was reverted and I hope that's the end of that case. Now, for a second case I have reverted your unsourced edit of Forrest Mims. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I did exactly as you suggested by taking it to the talk page. Then you prodded me into making the change by saying "is that all you'll do when other edits are reverted?", so I did. Now you are issuing a BS "second warning" for doing exactly what you encouraged me to do. On top of that, the change was to a BLP but the part I changed was not a description of a person but an organization. Why are you encouraging edits that you turn around and undo and then claim are in violation? IHaveAMastersDegree (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody encouraged you to edit the Montford article again. I have tried to encourage you to self-revert (which you didn't) and/or pause (which you didn't) and/or go to a talk page and defend an edit and get consensus (which you didn't). By the way your edit to say Montford is "Known for ... climate change denial" is not a description of an organization, and I am not the editor who undid it. Now are you going try to defend your edit of the Mims article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]