User talk:Peroxisome

Welcome!

Hello, Peroxisome, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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. [1] [2] [3] --Ronz 01:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, really - use the talk page

You are once again removing well-sourced material without bothering to use the talk page ([4]). 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 ^Talk 21:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

3RR - Final warning

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

While you're at it, you may want to stop the personal attacks as well (e.g. [5]). Obviously, my edit was not "designed to be inaccurate and breach BLP". MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{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)[reply]

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 ([6], [7]). 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 ^Talk 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[[8]] Finally, i note that Raul did not caution, or discuss with me before banning.Peroxisome 23:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 22:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The intent of Wikipedia'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^Charge! 04:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia users? Please answer yes or no. Sandstein 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia users. Peroxisome 10:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia articles. There is information on how to contact them at Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I should address ">Durova</'s comments on wp:CSN and above.

"Support indef on the basis of this post.[[9]] "

Now, WP:THREAT defines a threat as "A threat is when you tell someone you will do something to them if they don't do what you are asking them to do.", though it is clear that a threat may be explicit or implicit.

In this case, I am making a general point that having a majority of editors agreeing is no defence against action for defamation. That is why the WP:BLP is so explicit on having a requirement for well-sourced material.

This is in no way a threat against anyone, or against wikipedia, because i am not saying I will do something to anyone (or to wikipedia), and I am not asking anyone or wikipedia in this case to do anything. Thus neither part of the two parts of the definition of Threat are satisfied. This is a discussion. If discussion of WP:BLP is a basis for blocking a user, I think there will be a few people in trouble.

It is therefore surprising that MastCell, and Durova, have labelled this as a threat. It is simply not reasonable to consider this to be a threat.

On the subject of WP:BLP, it is important to note that it requires the removal of material which is poorly sourced. Specifically:

"Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source "

the bit I have been discussing on Steven Milloy is (1) contentious (2) is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Under any circumstances, the interpretation of the text in the AJPH is WP:SYN.

I think there is a further issue that Editorials, even when published in a peer-reviewed journal, are not necessarily fully reliable; because they are opinion pieces, they are not necessarily subject to peer-review. It may be the AJPH article additionally fails WP:V simply because it is an opinion piece or editorial.

I have been indefinitely banned by Raul654 for discussing this issue on a talk page. What is more, Raul has recently been involved in reverts on the Milloy page, and refers to edits that I agree with as "whitewash", and arguably has a COI. Peroxisome 17:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

In accordance with the discussion at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Block review of Peroxisome, you are unblocked. This is not an endorsement of any of your conduct, including the needlessly aggressive comportment in the thread below, and the reason for your block (unlike the duration) was found to be valid. I am ready to re-block you in the case of continued disruption.

Request handled by: Sandstein 11:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, your disapproval is noted, as is your failure to distinguish between real-life legal threats and suspicions of on-Wiki sockpuppetry. Now, would you care to provide a direct answer to the question? MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MastCell,

so far you have accused me of making legal threats [[10]], an entirely false claim. You have accused me of bad faith [[11]]. You now breach WP:FAITH by suggesting I use sock-puppets.

For the record, it is indeed unfortunate that I am blocked. I cannot comment on the numerous inaccuracies in your community sanction on NCDave.

Peroxisome 23:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Your disapproval is noted. Do you have any intention of actually answering the question? MastCell ^Talk 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow ! [12] you really did ! You honestly think that anyone who has a different viewpoint to yours is cheating. [13] [14]

Have a quick look at [15]. Do you think that page was created by "my sock-puppets", too ?

Just guessing here, but several of the commentators on NCDave's ban on WP:CSN were quick to suggest that the views they disagreed with were sock-puppetry by NCDave. Did you investigate that too ? Are those claims of sock-puppetry completely false also ?

Peroxisome 23:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, from experience, that your preferred tactic is to ignore direct questions and attack the questioner. Still, at this point there are two possibilities: you engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to evade your block, or you didn't and you're just being dilatory and childish by refusing to answer the question directly and attempting to taunt me instead. Neither possibility reflects very well on you. MastCell ^Talk 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"your preferred tactic is to ignore direct questions and attack the questioner"

I counsel you, WP:FAITH, wp:NPA. wp:NPa is a wp policy, and it seems that you are directly breaching it again. You have not yet apologised for, or resiled from, your allegation that I have made legal threats on Wikipedia.

"you engaged in abusive sockpuppetry to evade your block, or you didn't and you're just being dilatory and childish..."

I remind you of WP:FAITH, wp:NPA. I put it to you that there is another option that you have not considered; which is that you have assumed bad faith, that you have made personal attacks, and that you are engaged in a vain attempt to find another way to besmirch my reputation. I put it to you that this does not reflect on me in any way, but on you. Peroxisome 10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How strange. What sort of person believes that anyone who disagrees with them must be cheating ? Is that not a breach of wp:faith ? Is that not latent paranoia [16] ?

yet MastCell suspects that new users who disagree with him must be sock-puppets, and requests a check-user [17]. This is not the first occasion either; MastCell also suspected that NCDave and I are sock-puppets, and requested a check-user for the pair of us as well [[18]]. And all this from a user who regularly counsels others on the need to respect WP:FAITH.

Peroxisome 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAITH is not really at issue here. You've made dozens of posts claiming I'm committing defamation, and insisting both implicitly and explicitly that my edits are motivated by personal malice, while refusing to follow the prescribed channels for resolving our dispute. So to suddenly act shocked that I find it hard to assume the best about you is a bit silly. In fact, repeatedly insisting that others assume good faith while failing to do so yourself is a canonical characterstic of problem editors. But anyhow, your non-denial of abusive sockpuppetry is again noted. MastCell ^Talk 16:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAITH is a policy and it is at issue here. You would also do well to study WP:Attack.

There is a distinction here that you might not have grasped; if I say that something you have written has a defamatory meaning, I am not making a personal attack on you. Indeed, if you write something which does have a defamatory meaning on wiki, it is expected that this should be brought to your attention; this is clear from WP:BLP, and it would be negligent not do so. It strikes me that your argument is a very poor justification for your clear and untrue accusations of legal threats, your repeated personal attacks and your repeated insinuations of sock-puppetry.

Just out of interest, can you justify your claim that I have explicitly said that your edits are motivated by personal malice ?

Will you apologise for your insinuations of sock-puppetry, when these are proven to be without foundation ? Peroxisome 16:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would apologize if I accused someone of sockpuppetry without a reasonable basis for suspicion. The behavior of those accounts, and even more so your comments here, are a sufficient basis for suspicion of sockpuppetry. If I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I'm not going to apologize for asking you a polite but direct question (which you refused to answer) and requesting an IP check based on justifiable suspicions.

As to your accusations of malice: see "who is interested in the truth of the matter, when you can maliciously throw slime?" Or "I do not believe your assertion that there is no malicious inference here."

As to WP:BLP, you act like we haven't had this discussion endlessly on the talk page. Obviously, I don't feel my contributions have been defamatory, but merely reflect what reliable published fact-checked sources have said. Most outside editors have agreed that there is no defamation or WP:BLP violation there. You disagree and have said so, which is fine as far as it goes. A number of options for pursuing your concerns have been repeatedly suggested to you, including an request for comment or the BLP noticeboard. You've disdained these options and instead used the unfounded threat of defamation to try to bully other editors. That's where the problem comes in. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is this only comment I'll make here: Peroxisome, many of us are arguing to shorten your block, but your attitude in this thread is certainly not helping you. If I were you, I'd chill out, and wait for the WP:RCU results. And MastCell, while I applaud your great work in general, I don't think your continued engagement of Peroxisome here helps anything. If I were you, I'd chill out, back away from this mess, and wait for the WP:RCU results. If the IPs don't match, then ~~apologize to Peroxisome~~ admit you were wrong as you said you would, but otherwise, I don't think there is anything to be gained by continuing to engage Peroxisome in this thread. Yilloslime 17:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"explicitly that my edits are motivated by personal malice"

just to be clear, mast, the first example you cited was me asking a question, not me making an explicit statement that your edits are motivated by personal malice. The second example you quoted was a statement about my beliefs, not an explicit statement that your edits are motivated by personal malice. It seems you have made rather a number of statements about me that are at variance with my perception of reality.

you have suggested yet again that I have used a threat [[19]]; but not according to the definition on wikipedia, or any other definition I suspect. Your talk of threats is hyperbole at best, and consistent with your unfounded insinuations of sock-puppetry.

Yilloslime, thanks very much for your comments. Actually, I don't much mind if Raul654 blocks me for life. He has a COI, he has a distinct POV about the Milloy article, and his block of NCDave, and rapid support of NCDave's block leaves me in no doubt as to his motivations. He also gives me an indefinite block for discussing stuff on the talk page, after no warning whatsoever.

If you expect me to believe that a ban by Raul represents an objective or justifiable action, or that I should be abjectly grateful for a shorter ban, you have got to be joking. What next- that I have to engage in double-think, and learn to love Big Brother ? And the current version of Steven Milloy ? Peroxisome 18:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let the record show that MastCell has requested two checkuser requests on me. On each occasion, it has been shown that his suspicions were without foundation.

On each occasion, one of the principal things that raises MastCell's suspicion is that people are arguing contrary to his POV. MastCell has made repeated, false claims that I issue legal threats on Wikipedia. He has accused me of bad faith. He has publically raised his suspicion that I have breached wikipedia user standards by committing sock-puppetry. I look forward to his multiple apologies for any false accusations he has made. Peroxisome 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC) test new sig I, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia 15:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

test Peroxisome^{I, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia} 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC) test Peroxisome^{I, personally, do not mean to take legal action against anyone on wikipedia} 18:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654

Regarding your proposal to open a request for comment on Raul654 regarding his COI in banning me, I don't know what the rules are regarding such things, but Raul654 was quite clear in expressing his opinion of Steven Milloy here on the discussion page for the Advancement of Sound Science Center article. That was a few hours after he blocked you, and a few days before he banned me from editing the Advancement of Sound Science Center and Steven Milloy articles. Here is what Raul654 wrote:

"...no, [Milloy] just takes money from [corporate interests] and then writes articles (and generally by distorting the truth) so as to advocate positions favorable to their bottom line. But of course there's no connection between the two." Raul654 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Raul654 has an axe to grind, and had no business acting as arbiter in these cases. I therefore support your proposal. NCdave 09:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]