Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Global Warming Controversy

Puzzled

Jdey123 makes allegations about various editors, and specifically about my editing, but despite listing "Attempted to engage with editors via their talk pages", has never edited my talk page as far as I can find. Jdey123 lists "Attempted to engage with editors via the article's talk page" and says others have made "No attempt to engage in debate via talk pages", but has only edited the article talk page once in the last 12 months. Diffs and clarification would be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 20:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Take note that I have not been involved in a mediation, to my knowledge before, and may make mistakes in it.) I too am puzzled by some of the wording used. His point seems to suggest that everyone who edited the article did so based on political grounds relating to their personal views on the subject. I feel I must note that my reverts on the talk page were due to its appearence of having been copy-pasted from a dif. page; I assumed it to be vandalism and did not notice an extra section. Earlier edits to the talk page were simple-page blankings, prompting my assumptions on later revisions of being vandalism; the changes were simply too much to read and, because of the aforementioned appearence of having been copy-pasted from a dif. page, most or all of the talk page appearered on it. On the article, proper, the unsigned user failed to state why entire sections were blanked, as can be shown here, or what was said was unhelpful and gave the impression (to me) of a biased opinion over the controversies, in general; again, this led to my own actions.

Examining the listed "Primary issues" (as they appeared at 20:55 on January 28), my self-assesment of my role in these issues is listed below, which each numbered point referring to the issue point on the mediation page:

Point 1: I legitimise my actions on the account of having perceived all edits by an unsigned user to have been vandalism, and provided links to evidence of vandalism.
Point 2: With the talk page being the victim of edit warring, I felt that using it would be moot at the time - the section could be blanked, for example.
Point 3: No harrassment took place on my part.
Point 10: I refer to my own perceptions of the events which I have already referred to in the above paragraph.
Point 11: I feel threatened by this point, as it suggests that my anti-vandalism actions were simply based on political oppinion. It may even by perceived as going so far as to suggest that a number of users (me, included) are part of a conspiracy to limit the spread of information.

-- OsirisV (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OsirisV, while I'm similarly inexperienced in this, my understanding is that you certainly shouldn't feel threatened, and also should not put too much effort into this until the complaining party has given explanations and clarifications of their complaint. In this instance we'll have to be patient, as Jdey123 has been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for block evasion: earlier today 91.85.47.208 (talk · contribs) made a series of edits continuing Jdey123's arguments on the article, and after the IP was blocked for disruptive editing Jdey123, apparently the same user, started this request for mediation. Regarding the politics, some editors wish to give credence to an alternative reality in which certain political views decide science. Sadly, not very unusual. When Jdey123 returns they have a lot of work to do in making this into a valid request. If you have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide you'll note that mediation is for reaching agreement on article content, not behavioural issues, so Jdey123 seems to have come to the wrong place with much of the argument. . . dave souza, talk 22:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. :) -- OsirisV (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to assist :-) . dave souza, talk 22:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Talk:Requests for mediation/Global Warming Controversy

As someone as yet uninvolved but possibly interested in this matter, I find any attempt to assess the compliant uncertain (at best) for the total lack of diffs. As the complainant is currently blocked (for evading a prior block), and seems to have no Wikipedia expertise, is there any provision for anyone to work with him to obtain the necessary diffs? Or is he basically stuck with the case he has made? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. AGK [•] 13:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]