Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 23 August 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Peroxisome, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  William M. Connolley 10:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Steven Milloy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Steven Milloy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Ronz 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the talk page

Am I to interpret this, and your previous blanking of my request, to mean that you refuse to engage in discussion about your reverts on the talk page? MastCell 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, really - use the talk page

You are once again removing well-sourced material without bothering to use the talk page (). You may wish to re-read WP:BLP, particularly the section which states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." You may wish to tone down your constant complaints that well-sourced, mildly critical information is "defamatory", as they verge on a legal threat. There are avenues open to you if you disagree: you can go to the BLP noticeboard for outside opinions, or discuss things on the article talk page. If you continue to do neither of these and remove well-sourced content, that's a problem, and not a new one in your case, either. MastCell 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

your assertion that I am removing material without using the talk page is a falsehood. Why don't you read the talk page ? My comment on the talk page was up before your unfounded revert. Also, you have removed a completely accurate section without any justification, where I have edited to comply with your suggestion. Your comment about the AJPH editorial is flatly wrong, as set out above. THe paper does not state that Milloy's website is an example of such an approach- it merely states that numerous subjects are labelled as junkscience on the site. While there may be an inference to be drawn from the AJPH article, it is wrong to state the inference as a fact when the article does not. This is yet another example of you making incorrect edits to suit your point of view. Peroxisome 22:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about centralizing this on the article talk page, which you are now using. MastCell 22:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Peroxisome did just as MastCell asked, and as a result MastCell falsely charged him with "trolling." Sheesh! NCdave 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR - Final warning

Please stop edit-warring. Thanks. yandman 09:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

While you're at it, you may want to stop the personal attacks as well (e.g. ). Obviously, my edit was not "designed to be inaccurate and breach BLP". MastCell 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MastCell should not throw stones while living in a glass house, and Yandman & MastCell should not make false accusations against a fellow wikipedian, particularly one who has been as patient and careful as Peroxizome. NCdave 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for doing little or no productive editing while trolling talk:Steven Milloy at great length. Raul654 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

{unblock|unfair and arbitrary block. I believe that the Steven Milloy page is biased, and have set out clear and cogent arguments on the relevant talk page. While it is clear that there is a majority of editors who wish to take a different view, it is bizarre to penalise me for not making an excess of edits on the main page, and merely arguing my case on the talk page. Incidentally, I believe that some of the comments on the page are potentially defamatory, and was in the midst of a fairly civilised discussion with Yandman on this topic. It is also worth mentioning that several of my edits on this page have been accepted, since they are in fact correct, if bitterly resisted by other editors. Finally, the admin asserts that I behave as WP:TROLL. This is obviously incorrect; i have clearly set out a basis for making specific changes in the text of the milloy article.} Peroxisome 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage any admin reviewing this request to thoroughly check out Peroxisome's contributions. This is a long-term tendentious single-purpose account dedicated to whitewashing BLP-compliant criticism of Steven Milloy. His recent contributions consist of dismissing consensus, refusing to follow WP:DR by going to the BLP noticeboard or WP:RfC to voice his concerns, and constant legal threats of defamation (, ). Given the fact that he has stubbornly resisted consensus while simultaneously refusing to follow WP:DR and instead arguing and threatening endlessly on the talk page, I think that trolling is an appropriate description of his behavior. MastCell 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to put this very bluntly: MastCell is lying. He says that there is a concensus on the Milloy article, but that is blatantly untrue. Many editors have noted the article's extreme POV bias. Peroxisome is just one of them. I am another. Unfortunately, MastCell has several "allies" who seem just as determined as he is to ensure that this article remains a vicious and inaccurate attack piece -- and even repeatedly delete the article's warnings that its neutrality and accuracy are disputed.

MastCell & Raul654 also say that Peroxisome is a troll, but that is also blatantly untrue. Peroxisome has consistently worked to make constructive improvements to the article. Peroxisome is not an edit-warrior, he is a careful and consistent contributor to the article.

MastCell also says that Peroxisome has been "threatening" on the Talk page. That is another lie. Peroxisome has, to my knowledge, never done such a thing.

MastCell is a POV-pushing edit-warrior, who recently violated 3RR in that article, and who also has twice falsely accused me of violations. MastCell has also repeatedly violated WP:BLP by inserting false and possibly defamatory attacks on the subject of the biography of Steven Milloy. If anyone should be blocked, it should be MastCell, not Peroxisome! NCdave 21:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Raul has joined in the editing at Steven Milloy. It appears that he has a bias, insofar as he regards NCDave's reasoned amendment as a "whitewash". Given that Raul has an expressed view on this page, it would appear that he is not impartial in banning me; that he takes a diametrically opposite view to mine, and that his ban of myself serves to suppress a view that disagrees with Raul.] Finally, i note that Raul did not caution, or discuss with me before banning.Peroxisome 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you self-destruct in a paroxysm of dismay and desperation, you might read my long post at talk:Steven Milloy. Who am I to advise you like this? Well, I'm just about the most-experienced Wikipedian around. I've been contributing since 2001, when there were less than 200 users.

Things have changed. The power base has shifted from "all articles must to neutral" to "we can push a viewpoint if enough people support it".

I have tried to "insist" on following the "letter of the law", and I found out the hard way that consensus trumps rules. --Uncle Ed 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a witch hunt against people who support Steven Milloy. The Milloy article is one-sided and anyone who tries to make it neutral is in danger of a ban. That's ridiculous. I see no reason to ban Peroxisome. ClearCase Guy —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:23, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

NCdave

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As a participant on said article, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock discussion deferred to WP:CSN

I have suggested that your block be reviewed at WP:CSN and have disabled your unblock request until the discussion thread there is closed. If you have arguments to make concerning that discussion, please do so below. Sandstein 19:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am particularly amused by the clearly expressed claim that I have made legal threats. This is entirely false, and I challenge anyone to provide evidence of where I have made a threat. I have made the case that I believe comments on the biography of a living person are defamatory; I believe that Wiki has a Policy on this, and it is appropriate for me to flag up the nature of the problem. I do not see how this can be a legal threat; and indeed, it seems to be a strongly recommended course of action.

Re; MastCell's argument of 20:19, 22 August 2007, it is abundantly evident from the thread he quotes that I had read the referenced editorial in detail. I pointed out the defect, clearly. I suggested an alternative phrasing, which more closely followed the referenced, original text; and this was rejected. I resorted principally to discussion on the talk page rather than excessive reverting.

Just to address the issue clearly, the current version of Steven Milloy claims as fact specific persons wrote an editorial claiming that Milloy's website

(1) is opposed to regulation (2) Consequently, Milloy's website labels some science as junk.

That is a serious set of allegations, both for Milloy, and the persons writing the editorial. If these allegations are not soundly based, what does WP:BLP require ?

I must admit, I am bemused. A permanent block for arguing a less numerically popular view on the talk page ? Peroxisome 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The intent of Misplaced Pages's policy regarding legal threats is to maintain open discussion. Blockable threats don't have to be explicit if the intent is clearly to leverage a conversation and intimidate opposing editors into backing down. Your WP:BLP policy concerns can be addressed through OTRS or an e-mail to the Foundation. Durova 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we can solve this. Do you agree to unconditionally withdraw all real or perceived threats of legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation or Misplaced Pages users? Please answer yes or no. Sandstein 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

On the understanding that I have not made any threat of legal action, YES, I unconditionally withdraw all real or perceived threats of legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation or Misplaced Pages users. Peroxisome 10:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

For Durova, I am not sure her suggestion is viable. I have lost track of the number of allegations and text on the brignell and milloy pages that were untrue, and/ or potentially defamatory. I have entered into conversation on the talk page setting out the problem; but if I email the foundation at every such event, they foundation would be suffering a blizzard of emails. I am unsure what "OTRS" means. Peroxisome 10:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTRS is one of the mechanisms for reviewing potentially objectionable articles or claims, along with the BLP noticeboard. You can email the OTRS volunteers, who are editors who respond to complaints and concerns about inappropriate information in Misplaced Pages articles. There is information on how to contact them at Misplaced Pages:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). I presume you are not Steven Milloy nor do you represent him, but you can still contact the OTRS staff at the email address given on that page to lodge your complaint. You can also email the foundation directly. MastCell 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Other accounts

Let me ask you a direct question: do you have any connection to the accounts ClearCase Guy (talk · contribs) and WP User 29 (talk · contribs), both new accounts which appeared to comment on WP:CSN? MastCell 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC) what happened to WP:FAITH ?

Just as you assert that I issue legal threats, it seems that your approach to wikipedia standards is flexible. Peroxisome 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)