User talk:WVBluefield/Archive Talk 1

What on Earth are you talking about?

In this[1] - the very last line contains "The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society." - not to mention that the paragraph was taking about the hypothesis. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but you aren’t terribly reliable when it comes to adding material into BLP's as your track record would indicate. WVBluefield (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry bait not taken. May i remind you of WP:3RR (as well as WP:NPA)? Since are at 3RR right now on the Lindzen article. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may remind of whatever you like, but I have not crossed 3RR, and if you dont count the material you sourced to weblogs that you inserted, I am no where near. It makes me smile a little bit seeing how you get so incensed and outraged when I make an honest mistake (and fess up to boot) on the one hand and yet when called to the mat for your (often deliberate) shenanigans you play the “who me” game. WVBluefield (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have now crossed 3RR. Please remember that it is 3 reverts within 24 hours - not 3 per day. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing a conclusion not supported by the citation is WP:NOR, and as such a BLP violation. WVBluefield (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but 3RR is a bright-line - don't cross it. And frankly i don't see any OR or BLP violations anywhere in those edits, perhaps there is, but if it is not blatant violations close to vandalism, then you will get a very hard time getting out of a 3RR block. As you've found out before. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say you didn’t see any OR or BLP violations, would that include your insertion, and my subsequent removal, of blog soured criticisms? WVBluefield (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a blogs is not a BLP violations in and by itself. As you would have noticed if you'd followed the BLP/N board. But no matter what you still reached 4RR, which i hope you will attempt not to do again. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is and the policy is very clear on this. WVBluefield (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I suggest that you self-revert as you are right now at 5 reverts within 24 hours.~~ --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [stricken - since all you did was insert an {{or}} tag - sorry -Kim D. Petersen (talk)][reply]

You are edit warring. You've passed 3RR. You have been reported. Please stop. -Atmoz (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WVBluefield is *not* edit warring. His edits to the Lindzen article even if they constituted >3RR would be protected by the BLP exception to 3RR. Flegelpuss (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WQA

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility Gerardw (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Plimer

I have protected the article for a week. Please use the time to reach a consensus in talk. Please be aware of how seriously we take WP:BLP and WP:3RR. Thanks. --John (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPI?

Have you filed a SPI for Nrcprm2026? If not, do so immediately. tedder (talk) 05:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whats an SPI? WVBluefield (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPI, a sockpuppet investigation. You've accused an IP of being a banned user and asked for pages to be protected (as well as posted at ANI). The proper thing to do is to initiate an investigation to establish they are the banned user so the IPs can be blocked. tedder (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'll get right on that. WVBluefield (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for This account is a blatant sockpuppet of User:TDC. A number of factors conclusively link the account, including (but not limited to) editor-specific editing idiosyncrasies and particular topic area fringe views. The evidence is overwhelming and clear.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Vassyana (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2009 (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).

WVBluefield (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 of anybody and demand to see the evidence that I am. WVBluefield (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

~~Checkuser-confirmed sock of TDC. Blueboy 96 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)~~ Per Vassyana and Dougweller below. Behavioral evidence makes it highly unlikely that these are two different people.Blueboy 96 17:34, 1 January 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.

where is the checkuser evidence, I havent seen anything other than a link to my contributions. WVBluefield (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [2]. I have asked that you be granted an editing restricted unblock so that you would be able to mount an appeal at the appropriate venues, which I believe would be the blocking admin's talk page, WP:AN, and/or Arbcom. Would you agree to limit your edits to those venues if you are unblocked? --GoRight (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to limit my editing only to the proper venues for the purpose of clearing these accusations. WVBluefield (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read [3]. It is not encouraging. For off-wiki locations which might be applicable, see [4] which has a mailing list you can use, and [5] may also provide a venue but I am not certain of that. --GoRight (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on my user page that the evidence is a link to my contributions. I edit one article that my alleged sock master edited and this is enough to get me branded a sockpuppet? WVBluefield (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well accept that this won't be settled quickly, either. Here is the SPI history for the sockmaster you are accused of being a sockpuppet of: [6]. I see no recent cases so this was conducted behind the scenes for some reason. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have done as much as I can to help at this point until V responds. --GoRight (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck man, I hope you aren't a sock, but even if you are there needs to be good evidence of guilt before a verdict is decreed. If you are shown to be innocent (it should be the other way around!), then I hope you are still around to edit wikipedia and aren't totally put off by this entire affair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sockpuppet, I can assure you of that, and I have taken the appropriate steps to clear my name. Thanks. WVBluefield (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you didn't seem like one to me, but I'm certainly not infallible. Also, when every skeptic is check-usered it is only natural that they'll find people who use similar ISPs. If checkuser was so perfect then it'd be done to every user - there is a reason it isn't. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the thing though, I don’t think there was a checkuser performed on me, at least not officially. I just woke up this morning and found myself blocked with a link to my contributions being the reason. WVBluefield (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this block is not based on CheckUser evidence, as the information for the previous accounts is no longer sustained in the database. (CheckUser data expires.) I became aware of this separate from any formal SPI request or investigation. I am familiar with the sockfarm due my previous review of detailed evidence and consequent involvement, as noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TDC/Archive. In brief summary,

User:BluefieldWV demonstrated an immediate understanding of Wikipedia editing and policy
BluefieldWV/WVBluefield (henceforth WVB for short) claims the same/similar life details as TDC/CENSEI
WVB and TDC share the same topic area interests
WVB and TDC share the same point of view on multiple topics

This includes making the exact same complaint on the exact same article, including similar attempts to rewrite the article, where no other editor has made the exact same complaint in the exact same way nor attempted a similar rewrite

WVB and TDC both have periodic outbursts of incivility with the same tone, attitude, and language
WVB, like all TDC accounts, quickly developed a history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, personal attacks, and tendentious arguments
WVB and TDC share identifying spelling, phrasing, and grammar

This includes distinctive edit summaries

WVB, despite being previously uninvolved on those articles, engaged himself in disputes involving previous opponents of TDC
WVB has demonstrated a clear knowledge of TDC's past conflicts, for example raising arbitration proceedings against prior opponents of TDC

For all the controversial topics and editing disputes involved, only TDC and CENSEI have ever raised these prior disputes (including the arbitration case) in such a fashion

In total, WVB and TDC share a geographical location, life history details, topic interests, specific point of view, idiosyncratic English, and general behavioral trends. This alone would be enough behavioral evidence to make a sockpuppet identification, as it is quite beyond the reasonable realm of coincidence. Combined with the wikistalking of previous opponents and the knowledge of TDC's old prior disputes (and aggressive use thereof), there is no doubt left in my mind. Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decline to unblock, even under limited conditions. Another uninvolved administrator may do so at their discretion, but I request that they email me to discuss this issue before doing so. Vassyana (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] MastCell and Dougweller have been made aware of some details and I have left them a neutral message asking them to comment with their opinion and impressions. I have shared further details of this case with the functionaries list. I am glad to defer to a clue check from either of those editors or any of the members of the functionaries list. I will make sure the functionaries are aware of GoRight's request. Vassyana (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What "life story details" do they share? Do you have diffs to show them? Similar geographic location is not compelling, nor is the fact that of the 10 million+ users of wikipedia some users will edit controversial topics in similar ways. Humans are very good at seeing patterns that aren't there - please try to be careful - I find none of your reasons to be particularly compelling (esp. without diffs).TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it`s ok to chime in here, but if this "User:BluefieldWV demonstrated an immediate understanding of Wikipedia editing and policy" is a part of the evidence then it is inaccurate.

If WVBluefield had such an understanding of WP editing and policy then how did he breach 3RR and not know how to file an spi as shown above in his history? I too was accused of being a sockpuppet even though it must have been blindingly obvious that i was totaly new to WP :) --mark nutley (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he showed an understanding of 3RR as he argued that he didn't breach it because he was reverting a BLP violation. As for denying knowing how to file an SPI, a sockpuppet might well do that.

I contacted Vassyana after I saw the block. Some of the points they have in common might indeed just be coincidence when looked at on their own, eg the same geographical location, some similar interests. Others are, taken individually, much less likely to be coincidence. Taking them all together, it is vanishingly unlikely that they are different people. If anyone did the probability statistics on just the broad similarities above you'd have mathematical evidence, but that's really not necessary. They are clearly the same person. Dougweller (talk) 08:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence? What "similar life details" do they claim? I've only seen claims of evidence - not evidence itself. And that certainly isn't good enough when the original blocking reason was "based on checkuser," according to the blocking admin, and now that was a "mistake?" What other mistakes were made? TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake here is your claim that the blocking admin gave 'based on checkuser' as the reason for the block. Read it again. It says nothing about checkuser. Thus your question applies to you perhaps. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vassyana

User:BluefieldWV demonstrated an immediate understanding of Wikipedia editing and policy

Trust me, I was totally clueless when I first began editing here, but the policies are well written and I had some of off wiki tutoring. I also did a great deal of lurking and reading before throwing my hat in here, but I don’t think my initial edits and interpretation of policy were the keenest.

BluefieldWV/WVBluefield (henceforth WVB for short) claims the same/similar life details as TDC/CENSEI

According to this , TDC claimed to be a ChemE/ME. I am an EHS in the chemical industry as at least one editor here can vouch for. You might not know the difference between EHS and engineering, but the two have very little in common. Oh yeah, and we both hunt apparently. I hardly consider this similar or the same.

WVB and TDC share the same topic area interests

I have already shown this to be false. To the best if my knowledge, my edits have only overlapped TDC’s on exactly two articles. TDC seemed to broadly interested in politics, history and current events. I have little interest in these fields and primarily edit articles focusing on global warming.

WVB and TDC share the same point of view on multiple topics

Multiple topics such as the two articles where our editing has overlapped? I rewrote gulf war syndrome because the article was in absolutely terrible shape and is a disservice to those who went there for information. What other multiple topics do we share the same view on?

This includes making the exact same complaint on the exact same article, including similar attempts to rewrite the article, where no other editor has made the exact same complaint in the exact same way nor attempted a similar rewrite

What article are you referring to, TDC and I only had two articles in common. If you referred to the GWS article, TDC focused only on uranium munitions while I performed a complete re-write of the article as it was all terrible, every single sections. The complaint was not “exactly the same” or even similar.

WVB and TDC both have periodic outbursts of incivility with the same tone, attitude, and language

I have seen a great deal of incivility here from lots of editors. If you have examples of similar tone, attitude or language please provide them.

WVB, like all TDC accounts, quickly developed a history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, personal attacks, and tendentious arguments

Qucikly developed a history of warnings and blocks like dozens of other accounts who have edited controversial topics (global warming related), am I sock puppets of them as well, or are they sock puppets of TDC? Do tell.

WVB and TDC share identifying spelling, phrasing, and grammar

Examples please.

This includes distinctive edit summaries

Examples please.

WVB, despite being previously uninvolved on those articles, engaged himself in disputes involving previous opponents of TDC

One article, Gulf War Syndrome, and I have already addressed this.

WVB has demonstrated a clear knowledge of TDC's past conflicts, for example raising arbitration proceedings against prior opponents of TDC

Editors, like Nrcprm2026, have histories and contribution lists that are available to everyone.

Combined with the wikistalking of previous opponents and the knowledge of TDC's old prior disputes (and aggressive use thereof), there is no doubt left in my mind.

Who have I stalked? What opponents? Vaguely worded allegations are a bad proxy for specific examples.

I find you list to be vague, full of broad generalizations and blatant inaccuracies. It’s completely unsubstantiated because you make over a dozen specific allegations of my sockpuppetry with no links or any direct evidence other than your personal impressions. WVBluefield (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not entertain a huge sprawling back and forth, but I will provide some response here for the record to highlight some issues in your response.

On policy understanding: Five of your first ten edits display a an overt familiarity with Wikipedia policy and jargon.[8][9][10][11][12] This is a continuing pattern in your early edit history.[13][14][15] Talking like a long-term regular about 3RR, BLP, verifiability, original research, undue weight, and reliable sourcing is anything but "totally clueless".
Briefly on life details (bear in mind this includes the entire sock farm, such as CENSEI, not simply the one account User:TDC): Yes, similar fields, military background, and hunting interests are some of the correlation points. In brief response to your defense, an engineer specializing in computational fluid dynamics could easily work in EHS, so there is no contradiction necessarily. Indeed, an engineer specializing in "fractional distillation, combustion, thermally driven separation, and industrial boilers" would be quite well-suited to the EHS field. This feels like an attempt to pull the wool over my eyes under the presumption that I would not know better.
On retreading old battlegrounds and engaging old opponents: User:Nrcprm2026 can be discovered by reviewing histories and archives, assuredly. If it were only that, I would leave the suspicion at the door and call it a day presuming good faith. However, it is yet another point of similarity in a broad and diverse set of correlations. Even further, it is another point in a pattern of familiarity with TDC's conflicts. You have also conflicted with other TDC opponents, showing a familiarity with their conflicts with TDC & Socks. As but one example, you raised Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Winter Soldier 2 as a point against Xenophrenic. Xenophrenic is no stranger to controversial topics and has been involved in many editing conflicts, but the only person to ever raise that case to cast aspersions on Xenophrenic during other conflicts has been TDC. There is a broad and distinct pattern here involving TDC's prior conflicts that makes your assertion that you just happened to research the history of Nrcprm2026.

In light of the appearance of deception that I am seeing here, it reinforces the perception that you are indeed a sockpuppet of TDC. I am generally disinclined to engage with you further about this block in light of this apparent dishonesty. Vassyana (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the quick and severe punishments given to AGW SPA’s, another editor gave me some friendly advice, and told me to branch out and edit other articles in areas I was interested in. I would have been happy to edit only AGW related articles, but the other editor gave me a fairly long list of users who have been hounded out of the project, usually with community “consensus”, for being too narrowly focused in a controversial field. That’s why I edited the articles I did, they interested for both personal and professional reasons, not because I am a sockpuppet.

To respond to some of your specific allegations.

Familiarity with Wikipedia: My initial edits that you cite as evidence of my sockpuppetry were made only after an extensive review of the article’s talk page. The Patrick Michael article’s talk page referred to BLP issues within the article, and that is what I based my initial edit off of. It aint rocket science.

Similar autobiographies: As far as alleged similarities between myself and TDC, EHS is completely separate field from engineering and there are even separate degrees delineating the two. While the two areas are complimentary at times (and I stress “at times”) they share little in common as the focus of their efforts are on two entirely separate tracks. I’ll assume that your general ignorance in both of these fields led you to make that leap, but you are 100% wrong on that point.

On retreading old battlegrounds: Xenophreic filed a civility case against me after I commented on an RfC (an RfC I might add that I agreed with him over another editor). His history is pretty plain to see and I brought it up to spotlight what I perceived as a past of WP:TE and WP:DE that he had exhibited in articles, and later to me. Reviewing another editors contributions, as well as the disputes they have been in seem to be completely acceptable and is widely used around here. I have not edited ANY article that Xenophrenic has and have interacted only once with him, and he was the instigator of a problem, not me.

To reiterate some of your previous unsupported allegations:

Aside from one article and our apparent interest in hunting, you have yet to substantiate “WVB and TDC share the same topic area interests”
Once again, aside from exactly ONE article, you have yet to substantiate your claim that “WVB and TDC share the same point of view on multiple topics”
You made specific mention of mine and TDC’s similar and “exact” use of grammar, spelling, phrasing and edit summaries and have yet to identify any of these with examples.

It is my belief that you over reacted, all be it in good faith, but are unwilling to see the weakness of your case and reverse your apparently hasty decision. WVBluefield (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me apologize for the delay in response. I failed to see this on my watchlist when you first posted and only noted it by going through my list of prior matters that need checking. Again, sorry for the undue delay.

That said, let me provide a brief and limited response. I will only highlight what I feel to be the most obvious points of dishonesty.

As I noted, it was not simply familiarity with a single policy or issue. You showed a regular's grasp of 3RR, BLP, verifiability, original research, undue weight, and reliable sourcing. You initially claimed to be totally clueless. Here you only address one limited aspect of this general familiarity and your first edit. You do not address the issue of the conflict between evidence that you were broadly familiar with content policies and your claim that you were totally clueless or (as revised) that you were only familiar with a limited issue from reading the accompanying talk page.
Your response about EHS is completely misleading. I cannot help but feel you are trying to deceive me. EHS studies at the academic level are encouraged and there is a growing preference for safety professionals with such a background. However, certified safety professionals commonly do not possess safety degrees or even much academic EHS study at all. Engineers regularly work as EHS professionals. In some fields, it is fairly rare to find an EHS professional that possesses an EHS degree. (And yes, in others it is relatively rare to find someone who does not.) The type of engineering expertise claimed by TDC is perfectly suited to safety engineering and would be an area where safety certified engineers would be more expected than an EHS-degree bearing professional.

Given the apparent deception, I will not be responding further barring a strongly compelling response or other reason to do so. It seems to me that you are blowing smoke and fishing for hints on how to avoid getting caught again. I will not indulge either any further. If you wish to further debate or appeal this block, please follow the advice and instructions at Wikipedia:Appealing a block and Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Joe arpaio.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Joe arpaio.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]