![]() |
The Missing Barnstar | |
You are doing great work here! This award for your efforts is long overdue. – Sir Lionel, EG( talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Removing unverifiable and unsourced content in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is not edit warring. I only make good faith edits, provide clear reasons for the edits and always use reliable sources. MastCell gave no warning before frivolously blocking my account.
Decline reason:
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.
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What edit did I make that violated Wikipedia policy? I would like the specific edit and how it violated policy. All my edits were for removal of unverifiable and unsourced content that violated WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR. These were all in good faith and I will hold any of my edits up for administrative review.
Decline reason:
Sorry, all of these are not subject to an exemption, see Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. Max Semenik ( talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I've started an WP:ANI thread about your deletions of sourced content which you have removed from numerous articles. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've increased the duration of your block to indefinite. In a current thread at AN/I, there are significant concerns about the high volume of questionable edits you've made. More concerningly, there is some evidence of possible plagiarism in a number of your edits. I'd like to leave open the possibility of unblocking you at some point in the future, provided that we can be assured that you understand sourcing/content policy and the basics of plagiarism, but this block is intended to give other editors time to sort through your work and identify the scope of the problems.
I've posted this block at AN/I, where other admins will review it. If there's substantial disagreement with my decision to block you, then you'll be unblocked. If you'd like to make a statement, you can place it here and someone can copy it over to the AN/I thread for greater visibility. You can also see the guide to appealing blocks. MastCell Talk 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made.
Decline reason:
I read both your current unblock requests; you are only allowed to have one open at a time so I have removed the other one. I see a lot of passion and some good arguments. Unfortunately I see a lot of blaming other people and I do not see an unequivocal statement along the lines of "I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again". Having read this talk page and the AN/I discussion I think the situation is best summed up by whoever it was that said "being right is not a defence against edit-warring". So, I am declining this request as I still have concerns that if you were unblocked you might go back to the problematic behaviour that got you blocked. Take as long as you need to understand why you were blocked, read the guide to unblocks thoroughly, and come back with another unblock request if you like. Sorry. John ( talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
User:JournalScholar's two statements above have been copied to WP:ANI#Whitewashing to facilitate review of this block. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
From the ANI Page - "The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)"
The editor has demonstrated he doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. Despite being told numerous times it is not the case; he still maintains that a press releases and blogs are unreliable for their own opinion, including other dubious removals, if he is unblocked it is clear that he will still be disruptive as a result. He also has failed to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE and that we don't just mass delete content which can reasonably be sourced. He claimed this material had no source: [24], but the source at the end of the paragraph seems to be on the topic. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar: Having an unblock request declined is surely frustrating, but John's review was thoughtful and not lopsided against you. I encourage you to follow his advice by internalizing all of the policies he listed and coming back a bit later for reinstatement. Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but "indefinite" just means "until you can prove you will not be disruptive." Some things that can help your case are voluntarily taking on editing restrictions like 1RR or steering clear of certain topics, or promising to discuss changes on talk pages first. One step in coming back is understanding the policies. The other step is showing you can edit collaboratively. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You also haven't really addressed the plagiarism issue, beyond saying that it was done "in good faith". What are you actually going to do about it? You've created a good deal of work for other editors. Are you going to help them identify and rectify the plagiarism you've introduced? That would be a potential starting point.
That said, you don't necessarily have to convince me. As I've noted elsewhere, if another admin feels comfortable unblocking you based on your representations to date, I won't object, although I'm also not particularly encouraged thus far. MastCell Talk 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for WP:PLAG which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor," These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my good faith edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator has made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. Secondly, my block also states "rapid-fire removal of sourced content imposes substantial burden on other editors" with absolutely no evidence presented from the blocking administrator to support these false allegations. I asked for the charges to be presented and the administrator has not presented any examples nor how they violated Wikipedia policy. I have never removed sourced content that did not violate WP:RS, WP:V or WP:BLP.
Decline reason:
I have found numerous problems with your editing, including, but not limited to, the following. (Further examples of the problems are mentioned at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) You have repeatedly misrepresented your own editing, that of others, and the content of sources. For example, referring to
this edit above, you said "That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer." However, there is not a "sole source": there were two different references which you removed; and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph. Even if it is true that neither source mentions Spencer, that is not justification for removing the whole paragraph. There seems no justification for dismissing these two sources as not reliable. Another example of your misrepresentation is your claim above that you were not warned about edit warring before being blocked, when you had in fact been warned at least twice. (One of those warnings you removed after three minutes without comment, and you engaged in discussion in response to the other one, posting four times to the thread.) You have engaged in attempts to
wikilawyer about such issues as what constitutes a reliable source, showing no willingness at all to accept that consensus is clearly against you particular interpretations. You have objected to sources you don't like on spurious grounds, and sometimes you have just asserted that a source is unacceptable, without giving any reason at all. When errors in your reading of what constitutes a reliable source have been pointed out, instead of accepting that you were mistaken you have shifted your ground. However justifiable or unjustifiable may be individual edits, the overall tenor of your editing has been to try to shift the balance of coverage to reflect a particular point of view, and you have persistently and consistently resisted consensus that you are shifting the balance away towards non-neutral coverage. You have created copyright infringements. The use of the word "plagiarism" is probably to some extent a red herring, as copyright infringement is a more serious issue. And so it goes on... While some of your arguments appear to have some merit, and some of your editing appears to be constructive, I think that MastCell had it right at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in saying "Given his track record and rapid-fire editing, this imposes a substantial burden on other editors to sort through a high volume of his edits and try to separate those that are arguably reasonable from those that are abusive." Your claim to be acting in the interest of a neutral point of view is not supported by the deleted version of your user page, which at best was a clear attempt to plug a particular and very decidedly non-neutral point of view, and has been regarded by more than one editor as an attack page. Finally, I see a lack of any understanding or acceptance of the problems with your editing, and your unblock request contains denials of the existence of problems that are plainly visible. This does not produce any faith that you will not continue to edit in the same way. (There is a possible exception in the case of edit warring, but even there you state only that you "completely understand" the first block, which is a little ambiguous as to whether you accept that you were at fault, and in any case that is irrelevant to the current block.)
JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I would really recommend waiting a little while to ask for another unblock. Admins are generally cautious overturning the decisions of other admins unless there was a blatant instance of injustice (which, although I support your return to Wikipedia, I do not believe occurred). Patience is crucial.
Another essential element of your appeal should be an explanation of your future behavior in addition to the behavior that resulted in your block. This is not something you have addressed.
By the way, you have options for talking to admins outside of asking for unblock. For example, you could e-mail one. (Although this privilege can be revoked if it is abused.) -- Jprg1966 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Fascinatingly I am falsely accused of "whitewashing" BLPs by removing unsourced information in violation of WP:V and WP:RS in an attempt to present them from a NPOV. Yet this was made to Dessler's page to remove a fully sourced quote from a reliable source Nature with the comment "For someone who has done so much work on cc, we can do better than this". Yet apparently no work is allowed to be done to climatologist Patrick Michaels page even when all the edits were within Wikipedia policy. I do not know of a bigger hypocrisy here. -- JournalScholar ( talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In response to JamesBWatson unblock Review I have not misrespresented my editing in any way. JamesBWatson correctly notes that I mispoke in my statement regarding this and yes there are two sources but this does not change my argument. JamesBWatson stated "and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph." but does not provide this evidence. I read both sources and could not find support for what was stated in that paragraph in either source. The sources were not dismissed as not reliable but not relevant to the paragraph or for Spencer's BLP. Both sources were discussing the satellite temperature record and not Spencer. My comment regarding not being warned was in reference to the blocking administrator, MastCell never warning me. JamesBWatson took that out of context. I have had no administrative ruling on what is a reliable source regarding sources that I have contended. I am still waiting for this evidence. None of my objections to sources has been on spurious grounds but directly relating to WP:RS policy. Name the source that you feel I have not given adequate explanation for and I will as I always have in extensive detail. Yes I have tried to shift the point of view to a WP:NPOV. As already explained my user page was only updated in response to that user adding libelous charges to my page of being a "sockpuppet". Why is that not being mentioned? After reading Wikipedia policy I accept this was in violation and will not do this again. This has already been dealt with and has not been an issue since. I firmly reject that I created any copyright violations and find this charge completely baseless. I fully understand that I violated 3RR and apologize. However this block is not based on this charge but ones that are unsubstantiated, including WP:PLAG which explicitly states a user should not be blocked. Again I apologize and will work to correct these but first I have repeatedly asked for clarification of the policy as I do not believe all of these are in violation but were made in good faith as are all my edits.
Decline reason:
I share the opinions of JamesBWatson above me regarding your editing, and this unblock request addresses none of those issues. In addition, you have repeatedly been told what the problem with your edits was, and your refusal to listen shows no signs of letting up; that being the case, I'm disabling talkpage access; e-mail WP:BASC or use WP:UTRS for future unblock requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I know this comment won't win me any friends on Wikipedia, and it may inadvertently give JournalScholar some misguided idea that I support some aspect of their editing. However, you do not block a person's access to their User Talk Page because they aren't listening or aren't hearing the reasons. The only reason you block a person's Talk page access is if they are continuing the same behavior that led to a block in the first place, i.e. "rapid-fire removal of sourced content", at least that's what the block log says. Since there is no sourced content to remove on this user's Talk page, please unblock the Talk page access. You're not required to debate the user here or force them to understand you. In fact, by taking away their ability to discuss the issue with other editors, you may be making it harder for this user to actually start to understand the problem. Thanks. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Missing Barnstar | |
You are doing great work here! This award for your efforts is long overdue. – Sir Lionel, EG( talk) 05:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Removing unverifiable and unsourced content in violation of WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS is not edit warring. I only make good faith edits, provide clear reasons for the edits and always use reliable sources. MastCell gave no warning before frivolously blocking my account.
Decline reason:
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.
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What edit did I make that violated Wikipedia policy? I would like the specific edit and how it violated policy. All my edits were for removal of unverifiable and unsourced content that violated WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOR. These were all in good faith and I will hold any of my edits up for administrative review.
Decline reason:
Sorry, all of these are not subject to an exemption, see Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions. Max Semenik ( talk) 02:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I've started an WP:ANI thread about your deletions of sourced content which you have removed from numerous articles. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've increased the duration of your block to indefinite. In a current thread at AN/I, there are significant concerns about the high volume of questionable edits you've made. More concerningly, there is some evidence of possible plagiarism in a number of your edits. I'd like to leave open the possibility of unblocking you at some point in the future, provided that we can be assured that you understand sourcing/content policy and the basics of plagiarism, but this block is intended to give other editors time to sort through your work and identify the scope of the problems.
I've posted this block at AN/I, where other admins will review it. If there's substantial disagreement with my decision to block you, then you'll be unblocked. If you'd like to make a statement, you can place it here and someone can copy it over to the AN/I thread for greater visibility. You can also see the guide to appealing blocks. MastCell Talk 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have not even been given the chance to defend any of the accusations against me. The editors attacking me strongly disagree with my editing various BLPs to a NPOV because they hold these people in a negative light. No attempt was made to contact me about any of these issues as I would have worked to resolve all of them. I would like the opportunity to defend each charge made against me. An indefinite block is absolutely uncalled for. I would like the possible to post to the ANI board to defend myself. "Looking at JournalScholar's editing, it appears that some of his edits are at least arguable, while others are pretty much straight-up removals of well-sourced material without adequate justification" - That is an absolute lie. I have never removed well-sourced material without adequate justification and will defend every edit I made.
Decline reason:
I read both your current unblock requests; you are only allowed to have one open at a time so I have removed the other one. I see a lot of passion and some good arguments. Unfortunately I see a lot of blaming other people and I do not see an unequivocal statement along the lines of "I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again". Having read this talk page and the AN/I discussion I think the situation is best summed up by whoever it was that said "being right is not a defence against edit-warring". So, I am declining this request as I still have concerns that if you were unblocked you might go back to the problematic behaviour that got you blocked. Take as long as you need to understand why you were blocked, read the guide to unblocks thoroughly, and come back with another unblock request if you like. Sorry. John ( talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
User:JournalScholar's two statements above have been copied to WP:ANI#Whitewashing to facilitate review of this block. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
From the ANI Page - "The responses on his talk page about two specific edits do not indicate that JournalScholar is aware of the problems with his editing: the blatant copyvios in adding content; and the spurious reasons for removing sourced content with which he disagrees. Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)"
The editor has demonstrated he doesn't understand WP:RS and WP:V. Despite being told numerous times it is not the case; he still maintains that a press releases and blogs are unreliable for their own opinion, including other dubious removals, if he is unblocked it is clear that he will still be disruptive as a result. He also has failed to understand WP:BURDEN, WP:PRESERVE and that we don't just mass delete content which can reasonably be sourced. He claimed this material had no source: [24], but the source at the end of the paragraph seems to be on the topic. IRWolfie- ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar: Having an unblock request declined is surely frustrating, but John's review was thoughtful and not lopsided against you. I encourage you to follow his advice by internalizing all of the policies he listed and coming back a bit later for reinstatement. Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but "indefinite" just means "until you can prove you will not be disruptive." Some things that can help your case are voluntarily taking on editing restrictions like 1RR or steering clear of certain topics, or promising to discuss changes on talk pages first. One step in coming back is understanding the policies. The other step is showing you can edit collaboratively. -- Jprg1966 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
You also haven't really addressed the plagiarism issue, beyond saying that it was done "in good faith". What are you actually going to do about it? You've created a good deal of work for other editors. Are you going to help them identify and rectify the plagiarism you've introduced? That would be a potential starting point.
That said, you don't necessarily have to convince me. As I've noted elsewhere, if another admin feels comfortable unblocking you based on your representations to date, I won't object, although I'm also not particularly encouraged thus far. MastCell Talk 20:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I completely understand my initial 24 hr block for edit warring and have no interest in revisiting that. However I believe my indefinite block is unjustly based on a plagiarism charge which does not meet wikipedia policy for WP:PLAG which states, "Wikipedians are more vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism than are most writers, because we are required to stick closely to the reliable sources. "For that reason, plagiarism concerns should be addressed calmly, with a view to educating rather than pointing the finger. The aim of plagiarism inquiries in most cases is simply to clean up the articles, rather than take action against the editor," These issues have never been brought up to me by anyone here and I was under the impression that since those sentences were fully sourced it would meet criteria for adequate credit. I would like to know if my good faith edits were in violation of Wikipedia policy and what is allowed in terms of paraphrasing. The user who accused me of plagiarism did so as if I did not fully cite those sentences, this is a fabrication as EVERY single edit I do when adding new content is fully cited. Please review my detailed edit history to confirm this. Again no administrator has made an attempt to discuss these issues with me before declining my unblock request. I can answer your questions if someone would talk to me. Secondly, my block also states "rapid-fire removal of sourced content imposes substantial burden on other editors" with absolutely no evidence presented from the blocking administrator to support these false allegations. I asked for the charges to be presented and the administrator has not presented any examples nor how they violated Wikipedia policy. I have never removed sourced content that did not violate WP:RS, WP:V or WP:BLP.
Decline reason:
I have found numerous problems with your editing, including, but not limited to, the following. (Further examples of the problems are mentioned at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) You have repeatedly misrepresented your own editing, that of others, and the content of sources. For example, referring to
this edit above, you said "That information is completely unsupported by any reliable source, and I could not find a single reliable source to support any of the information in that paragraph and the sole source does not mention Spencer." However, there is not a "sole source": there were two different references which you removed; and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph. Even if it is true that neither source mentions Spencer, that is not justification for removing the whole paragraph. There seems no justification for dismissing these two sources as not reliable. Another example of your misrepresentation is your claim above that you were not warned about edit warring before being blocked, when you had in fact been warned at least twice. (One of those warnings you removed after three minutes without comment, and you engaged in discussion in response to the other one, posting four times to the thread.) You have engaged in attempts to
wikilawyer about such issues as what constitutes a reliable source, showing no willingness at all to accept that consensus is clearly against you particular interpretations. You have objected to sources you don't like on spurious grounds, and sometimes you have just asserted that a source is unacceptable, without giving any reason at all. When errors in your reading of what constitutes a reliable source have been pointed out, instead of accepting that you were mistaken you have shifted your ground. However justifiable or unjustifiable may be individual edits, the overall tenor of your editing has been to try to shift the balance of coverage to reflect a particular point of view, and you have persistently and consistently resisted consensus that you are shifting the balance away towards non-neutral coverage. You have created copyright infringements. The use of the word "plagiarism" is probably to some extent a red herring, as copyright infringement is a more serious issue. And so it goes on... While some of your arguments appear to have some merit, and some of your editing appears to be constructive, I think that MastCell had it right at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents in saying "Given his track record and rapid-fire editing, this imposes a substantial burden on other editors to sort through a high volume of his edits and try to separate those that are arguably reasonable from those that are abusive." Your claim to be acting in the interest of a neutral point of view is not supported by the deleted version of your user page, which at best was a clear attempt to plug a particular and very decidedly non-neutral point of view, and has been regarded by more than one editor as an attack page. Finally, I see a lack of any understanding or acceptance of the problems with your editing, and your unblock request contains denials of the existence of problems that are plainly visible. This does not produce any faith that you will not continue to edit in the same way. (There is a possible exception in the case of edit warring, but even there you state only that you "completely understand" the first block, which is a little ambiguous as to whether you accept that you were at fault, and in any case that is irrelevant to the current block.)
JamesBWatson ( talk) 09:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I would really recommend waiting a little while to ask for another unblock. Admins are generally cautious overturning the decisions of other admins unless there was a blatant instance of injustice (which, although I support your return to Wikipedia, I do not believe occurred). Patience is crucial.
Another essential element of your appeal should be an explanation of your future behavior in addition to the behavior that resulted in your block. This is not something you have addressed.
By the way, you have options for talking to admins outside of asking for unblock. For example, you could e-mail one. (Although this privilege can be revoked if it is abused.) -- Jprg1966 (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Fascinatingly I am falsely accused of "whitewashing" BLPs by removing unsourced information in violation of WP:V and WP:RS in an attempt to present them from a NPOV. Yet this was made to Dessler's page to remove a fully sourced quote from a reliable source Nature with the comment "For someone who has done so much work on cc, we can do better than this". Yet apparently no work is allowed to be done to climatologist Patrick Michaels page even when all the edits were within Wikipedia policy. I do not know of a bigger hypocrisy here. -- JournalScholar ( talk) 06:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
JournalScholar ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
In response to JamesBWatson unblock Review I have not misrespresented my editing in any way. JamesBWatson correctly notes that I mispoke in my statement regarding this and yes there are two sources but this does not change my argument. JamesBWatson stated "and both of those sources do support substantial amounts of information in the paragraph." but does not provide this evidence. I read both sources and could not find support for what was stated in that paragraph in either source. The sources were not dismissed as not reliable but not relevant to the paragraph or for Spencer's BLP. Both sources were discussing the satellite temperature record and not Spencer. My comment regarding not being warned was in reference to the blocking administrator, MastCell never warning me. JamesBWatson took that out of context. I have had no administrative ruling on what is a reliable source regarding sources that I have contended. I am still waiting for this evidence. None of my objections to sources has been on spurious grounds but directly relating to WP:RS policy. Name the source that you feel I have not given adequate explanation for and I will as I always have in extensive detail. Yes I have tried to shift the point of view to a WP:NPOV. As already explained my user page was only updated in response to that user adding libelous charges to my page of being a "sockpuppet". Why is that not being mentioned? After reading Wikipedia policy I accept this was in violation and will not do this again. This has already been dealt with and has not been an issue since. I firmly reject that I created any copyright violations and find this charge completely baseless. I fully understand that I violated 3RR and apologize. However this block is not based on this charge but ones that are unsubstantiated, including WP:PLAG which explicitly states a user should not be blocked. Again I apologize and will work to correct these but first I have repeatedly asked for clarification of the policy as I do not believe all of these are in violation but were made in good faith as are all my edits.
Decline reason:
I share the opinions of JamesBWatson above me regarding your editing, and this unblock request addresses none of those issues. In addition, you have repeatedly been told what the problem with your edits was, and your refusal to listen shows no signs of letting up; that being the case, I'm disabling talkpage access; e-mail WP:BASC or use WP:UTRS for future unblock requests. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
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.
I know this comment won't win me any friends on Wikipedia, and it may inadvertently give JournalScholar some misguided idea that I support some aspect of their editing. However, you do not block a person's access to their User Talk Page because they aren't listening or aren't hearing the reasons. The only reason you block a person's Talk page access is if they are continuing the same behavior that led to a block in the first place, i.e. "rapid-fire removal of sourced content", at least that's what the block log says. Since there is no sourced content to remove on this user's Talk page, please unblock the Talk page access. You're not required to debate the user here or force them to understand you. In fact, by taking away their ability to discuss the issue with other editors, you may be making it harder for this user to actually start to understand the problem. Thanks. -- Avanu ( talk) 04:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)