User talk:Jaimaster

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jaimaster, 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:

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! - Enuja (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block warning

Since your stated intention is (in essence) to cause as much disruption as possible, if yon continue to disrupt our global warming articles, I'm going to block you. Raul654 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thats a very, very, very, very, very liberal POV take of what I have written. You try it and see where that lands you on abuse of admin. Im all for seeing what happens here... Jaimaster (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaimaster. Can you explain what you meant in the diff that Raul has highlighted please? --John (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed your recent contribution history, and as an admin who has no previous history in this area, I independently agree with Raul that your behavior merits a block. Without taking sides on the matter of global warming, I take great issue with "Still, fighting the good fight is what its all about" from your user page. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Instead we work by consensus. However, blocking is meant to be preventive and not punitive, so if you are willing to remove this from your user page and refrain from edit-warring on GW-related pages in the future, I will not block you this time. Failing that I propose to block you for 24 hours to prevent your disruption. It's up to you, but I counsel you to choose wisely. Let me know if there is any way I can advise you to help you be a more productive editor, please. --John (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the link Raul gave, I stated that I will continue to make my good faith edits over, and over, and over again until Raul is willing to complete the edit-revert-discuss cycle. This is not edit warring according to my interpretation of WP:3RR - I am applying BRD, and havae repeatedly requested that Raul discuss his reverts to no avail. Currently Raul prefers to revert, revert, revert without discussion - this is edit warring with no regard towards building a consensus. Can you please explain why my recent contribution history would merit a block while Raul's would not? Reverting without giving reason or joining discussion is Raul's Modus Operandi and completely against the spirit of WP:Consensus - he refuses to participate in seeking compromise in any way, shape or form.

I am completely staggered that you choose to take the comment on my user page literally. Its a very common phrase describing one's commitment to continue in the face of adversity. Since you appear feel it is akin to a declaration of war I will remove it.

I do not intend to stop attempting good faith edits to remove the "all Global Warming doubters are liars in the pay of big oil" POV that Raul is currently revert-protecting until he is willing to discuss why he feels it is correct and encyclopedic. If you feel this merits a preventative block - thats your call. You will note that this "edit war" is over the catagorisation of a skeptical AGW film as "Denialism" and linking the wiki list of all scientists skeptical of AGW to the "Climate Change Denial" page. Both are attempts to equate doubting the anthropogenic causation link with Flat Earthism and Holocaust denial. I am not vandalising the articles, I am not attacking the content, I am not using unreliable sources to push a minority POV onto the page over the top of peer reviewed literature. I am just trying to remove pejorative, unsourced highly POV labelling. Please keep this in mind regarding your decision. Jaimaster (talk) 05:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further, on reviewing WP:Block, you will notice that Raul's initial warning on this talk page constitutes a direct threat to break the policy - per WP:Block#Disputes - in a deliberate bullying attempt over a content dispute. Could you advise me on what steps I can choose to take to report this, and get your own opinion on if my interpretation of the incident is correct? Jaimaster (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some thoughts on your reply.

1) WP:CIVIL is non-negotiable and applies to all of us. You must always assume good faith in other editors, especially those you disagree with.

2) You can get a lot more latitude for your suggestions if you stick to article talk, than if you revert war against consensus on the article space itself. Be careful how you use user talk; try to make it focused and polite, as I hope this communication is.

3) Comment on content, relating it to policy and common sense, rather than the contributor you are in dispute with. We may all assume the motives which may be driving those we are in dispute with, but to comment on them like you have been doing is contrary to our policies.

4) Ultimately, WP:NPOV drives much of what we do here. For scientific articles, that means a very high standard of peer-reviewed mention before we even mention it.

I'm delighted to see you haven't continued to edit-war on the articles; this is a great start. Let me know if you need any more help. --John (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, in relation to your question about Raul, let's assume that I'll deal with this from now on, a new admin you have no history with. Sound fair? --John (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re 1 and 2, agree and accept. Re 3, poisoning the well ironiically exactly the type of labelling I am attempting to remove that Raul keeps reverting back. Re 4, im not challanging the science portions of any of the articles anyway (in this dispute). Re addendum, I will continue to push for discussion on the talk pages. If Raul chooses not to contribute on that discussion but keeps reverting (see [[1]] for his latest revert of the topic at hand, this time reverting an edit made by another user, again without comment, reason or discussion) what course of action do you recommend? Jaimaster (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informal request for third party opinions re Jaimaster vs Raul654 "edit wars"

My contentions

One - that Raul654 is actively engaging in edit wars to maintain his POV on wiki's Global Warming related articles
Two - Raul654 meets the majority of definitions of being a disruptive editor
Three - Raul654 has abused his status as an Administrator in an attempt to intimidate other users

Concessions

Glass houses, throwing stones - if the shoe fits I will happily wear it, so long as the comments are applied fairly to both sides. I have no doubt at all that I allowed my frusterations to boil over last week and give no excuses for it. I merely ask for a fair application of the rules to all parties and object to what I still percieve as an attempt at intimidation by an administrator involved in a content conflict.

Objectives

One - to break the perceieved edit war impasse instead of continuing an I revert / you revert ad infinitum
Two - to understand if and how my behavior is different and worse than Raul654's in regards to the perceived edit war, which Raul654 and John both appear to imply is so
Three - to ascertain if my opinion of Raul654's threat to block me is considered correct by neutral parties

Related Wiki policy -

WP:EW
WP:Block#Disputes
WP:Disruptive_editing#definition of disruptive editing and editors (verifiability, rejection of input, campaign to drive away productive contributors re WP:OWN)

Related wiki policy essays -

WP:Revert only when necessary#Explain reverts
WP:DBF (2, 3, 6)

Evidence presented - Raul654's reverts

Regarding article: The Great Global Warming Swindle -

I am attempting to remove the catagorisation "Denial" from this page. Raul654 opposes the removal.

Reverts made by Raul654 without any reason given -

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]]

Reverts made by Raul654 with an unsourced attack on the subject matter -

[[7]]

Reverts made by Raul654 mistating the "consensus" for the change on the talk page -

[[8]]

Regarding article: Climate change denial

I am attempting to remove two links from "see other" as in my opinion being linked here on the Climate change denial page is an implication of involvement in the behavior described in the article. Raul654 disagrees with removal citing that one link has WP:RS for inclusion, implying agreement with my opinion regarding implication of the "see other list". That WP:RS is not linked in the article at all. Why both links were restored in his full revert rather than a partial revert of the link in question (which would arguably have been valid) is not explained.

Reverts made by Raul654 without any reason given -

[[9]]

Reverts made by Raul654 citing a source not in the article and applicable to only half of the edit -

[[10]]

Finally - total comments made by Raul654 on both article talk pages regarding all reverts or the content in dispute - zero

Evidence presented - Raul proposing to use his administrator status in violation of WP:Block#Disputes -

[[11]] [[12]]

Further I state that this block warning was made in direct response to my notice of intention to persue WP:DISPUTE resolution,

[[13]]

and after my response (essentially "I dare you") -

[[14]]

Raul654 contacted another Administrator and, in my opinion, misrepresented the situation (labelling me a constant disruption, re-interpreting my intention to continue good faith edits until Raul654 discusses his reversions as "declared he intends to continue disrupting") -

[[15]]

In response to which Administrator John proposes to ignore WP:Dispute#Last resort: Arbitration and jump straight to Arbitration -

[[16]]

Before deciding to uphold Raul654's threat to block without addressing my own concerns about Raul654's behavior, per User talk:Jaimaster#block warning. Further, no equivilent warning has been made to Raul654 by John regarding his involvement or behavior in this matter.

Opine away.

Jaimaster (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - users Raul654 and John have both been notified and invited to comment. Additionally I have invited at random administrator Misza13 to look at this as well. If you all decide I am completely in the wrong I commit to accepting that. Jaimaster (talk) 03:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note #2 - I am on a self imposed hiatus from all GW related articles (except talk pages) for say, a week from today. Hopefully that is enough time to resolve this. In any case on reflection to avoid being a single issue fanatic I need to branch out my editing a bit. Jaimaster (talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from User:John

Wikipedia is not a court of law and we do not deal in verdicts. I know this has been a difficult area of the project historically, and I know Raul is one of the admins and highly experienced editors who helps prevent minority viewpoints from gaining undue weight. While it is always difficult as an admin to know how to use admin tools ethically but also effectively, I think Raul has done pretty well in this case. I did think he was in danger of looking too involved in a previous recent block he made, though it was marginally ok, so I reminded him that it's good to have fresh eyes sometimes, which led to him contacting me. By asking me to look at it, I think he did the right thing.

You on the other hand come across as a fairly new user with what seems like an agenda to promote, and you seem to have been pretty aggressive in your edit warring at times, and unnecessarily personal in many of your comments in talk and edit summaries.

So, overall, I think Raul has acted well, and you have, on occasion, not done. I think it is laudable that you are trying to find out the details of where you've gone wrong with a view to not repeating it. If you ever need any other help, you know where my talk page is. --John (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]