User talk:GregJackP

Please add new posts at the bottom of the page.

Your account

Hi. Could you explain why the logs show that you created this account at 02:29, 22 November 2006, yet didn't make your first edit until 14:36, 27 January 2010? I assume you were using another account during that time, correct? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I was a lurker. Is there a reason for the question? I've already been through an SPI and cleared by checkuser, but based on the history in the CC area, I'm a little suspicious of your question. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's a reason for my question, as I'm analyzing every account that is participating in the arbcom case. I don't understand why you would create an account in 2006 that you wouldn't use until 2010. Could you explain that to me? The simplest explanation is that you wanted to reserve the account name and were too busy to edit at the time. As for lurking, I can understand that, and for me, that's an adequate explanation. As for your friend Minor4th, his account has been quite active on climate change articles, while yours has been less so. Would that be an accurate observation? Sorry to bother you. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I was scared to edit initially, afraid I would screw something up, so I lurked off an on for several years. As for Minor4th, you would have to ask him, but I do know that neither of us knew or cared about AGW/CC until we mentioned WMC in regards to administrator abuse in an ill-advised article I wrote. At that point the cabal turned on us, and due to the intensity and severity of the attacks, both of us became interested. Neither of us understood the underhanded methods that a number in the AGW alarmist camp would go to, and the complete mockery that they made of the WP rules. I have a natural affinity towards the oppressed, and Minor4th has a strong sense of justice, so he is interested in seeing AGW skeptics treated fairly. It's a tough row to hoe, but we feel that someone needs to stand up for what is fair and right. You're welcome to join us. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

^^What he said. Minor4th 03:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is consistent with something that I have long thought, which is that many Wikipedia editors view global warming contrarians as the scrappy underdogs fighting against the big bad scientific establishment. This is consistent with the oft-made observation that Wikipedia appeals to those of a libertarian, "objectivist" viewpoint. I don't mean this in any pejorative way; it's just that I like to try and understand where others are coming from. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I usually pull for the underdog. I generally have no beef with the big bad scientific establishment, but there is what I perceive to be an imbalance and a pretty pervasive unfairness to those who are trying to edit anything other than the mainstream consensus view. Minor4th 04:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I and, I think, ATren have said something similar as to why we became involved in the topic also. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, GregJackP, but after reviewing the old SPI and taking a closer look at both of your accounts, I had trouble finding overlapping edits indicating that you both just happened to be online at the same time. What I found instead, could be described as "meatpuppetry" if one assumes you are two different people, and "sockpuppetry" if one assumes you are same, such that one logs off and on using two different connections. I realize that the SPI was closed due to lack of evidence, and I also realize that for all intents and purposes you appear to be two different people with two separate accounts. However, I am concerned about the lack of overlapping edits, which I personally find strange considering you have both worked on the same articles at the same general time, yet you never manage to be online at exactly the same time or making edits close together subsequent to those edits. For example, today, you both made edits several minutes apart on NYB's talk page, but I noticed a pattern emerge in the contrib history, namely that whenever closely timed edits were made, one account would log off and another would continue editing such that two accounts would rarely be online at the same time after two closely edits were made. Would you say I'm crazy, or could there be another explanation? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to re-read the SPI, it was not closed for "lack of evidence," it was closed because we were cleared. You may also want to re-read the definition of meatpuppetry AND the discussion on the SPI. If you wish to continue this discussion, take it up at SPI or ANI. I'm tired of Global Warming alarmists trying to run off anyone that disagrees with them, and if you continue this course, I will seek sanctions based on personal attacks and harassment, especially since you have not read thoroughly the SPI (which addressed all of the points that you attempt to make). If you want to play your silly little AGW alarmist harassment games, do it with someone else - I won't tolerate it - nor will ArbCom. If you don't believe me, test the theory. Otherwise, stay off my talkpage. GregJackP Boomer! 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@Viriditas -- I'd say you're crazy. There were also several instances of simultaneous edits on the SPI. Not to mention the fact that I have been verified through ArbCom, so if V really wants a legitimate answer to this witch hunt, I suggest she speak with Rlevse, Roger Davies, and Risker, who can vouch for my identity on wiki and off -- they know my real identity and contact information (but will not disclose it) and can conclusively confirm that I am not Greg. I have also verified through Lar with proof of my real identity, IP's, location, etc. I have also verified information with Nuclear Warfare and Brandon on this issue. With that, I expect this line of questioning to stop. Minor4th 05:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw

Hi GregJackP,

Please take a look at my response over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JD_Caselaw. There is nothing wrong with having two accounts, especially when one of them is identified with my real-life name; and aside from one lapse in May 2009 I've been an upstanding contributor and I hope to continue to be.

Regards,

Andrew Gradman editing as JD Caselaw (talk) (due to Wikibreak enforcer). 09:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Turned on you?

neither of us knew or cared about AGW/CC until we mentioned WMC in regards to administrator abuse in an ill-advised article I wrote. At that point the cabal turned on us - that sounds exciting, yet doesn't match any memories of mine. What is the article in quesiton? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's been deleted, and Greg's language is a little dramatic, but the basic information is accurate. We were both blocked for "BLP violations" and both subjected to an SPI because we sourced an article about Wiki administrators with the Solomon bit about your actions in the global warming topic area. You know the one ;) At that time, neither Greg or I had ever heard of you or Solomon for that matter, but that article drew many of the CC editors from out of the ether in support of you. How were we to know you were some sort of untouchable icon around here? By any other standards the Solomon article would have been considered a reliable source -- so we were at a complete loss as to why we were both blocked for BLP violations and without even an explanation. Minor4th 08:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so when GJP says At that point the cabal turned on us what he means is that people voted to delete his nice article? That seems a little more inflated that "over dramatic". As to LS... he has written quite a few hopelessly inaccurate articles about me, so I don't know which you mean. Is it the one ref'd here [1]? Certianly, no, none of LS's articles are RS's - they are all riddled with errors William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason they are not considered RSs is because the POV pushers who own this topic area reject it based solely on their dislike of Solomon and his views, even while accepting far less reliable stuff elsewhere. ATren (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg, don't take the bait. Cla68 (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually no: LS's articles aren't RS's because they are junk. Now we know the "mystery article" its possible to find some of the stuff GJP wrote, based on LS. Stuff like "Connolley used his administrator privileges to create or rewrite over 5,200 articles, removed over 500 articles, and blocked over 2,000 individuals who, according to the Financial Post, took positions that he disapproved of." This is twaddle - unless you're actually agreeing its true. Are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that particular claim is not true in the numbers -- he obviously misinterpreted the results of an edit counter -- but misinterpreting the intricacies of Wikipedia edit counters doesn't completely discredit him as a source -- do we discredit all sources which have made errors, because if so, there's a certain frequently-cited columnist we will need to purge. And anyway, regardless of his errors reading Wikipedia output, the thrust of his claims had merit, and he was dead right on the Singer-Martian issue, wouldn't you agree? ATren (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit of a shame you can't be honest even here; that LS was writing utter tripe is obvious to any competent wiki editor. And no, he was wrong about the Martians too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's precisely why you shouldn't be editing BLPs, because still don't recognize the wrong that was committed with that Martian stuff. ATren (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

A distinct lack of AGF on your part, Cla. But I hope GJP can provide a coherent account - I've still no idea what this deleted article is. Perhaps you know? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The article was Administrator abuse on Wikipedia (AFD, DRV). It was theoretically well-sourced, but not at all deserving of an article here. NW (Talk) 14:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WMC: Your track record on answering questions is abysmal. You have no standing to ask questions of anyone else until that improves substantially. Go bait someone else. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh Lar, isn't that just a teensy bit of a give-away that you're far too involved in this to pretend to be uninvolved? You too need to AGF - there is no baiting here, jsut a request for information. But I'm sure that GJP can answer for himself William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Baiting me won't work either. Go bait someone else. Or better yet, stop baiting completely. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a pun there just waiting to be made, but ... Minor4th 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with how good WMC is at it? ++Lar: t/c 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on Lar, you *can* completely ruin any pretence that you're objective, I know it. Just a few more comments and you're there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're all good at baiting but who's the master baiter? (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fraynework

Hi GregJackP,

Please review the Fraynework Multimedia page, let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks

Fraynework (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed FoF

Formally, I think, I ought to inform you of Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed_decision#Proposed_FoF: GregJackP_has_been_disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was aware that this had been added. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Joseph "Nanmankoi" Newman

Previous declined CSD was an A7 that didn't fit. It's clearly G3 though. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. :D GregJackP Boomer! 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Climate change alarmism

This is ridiculous. You are going probably going to cite this action as an example of my abusing my admin tools or something, but: consider yourself banned from Climate change alarmism. When the author of a source says that you are wrong, you should step back and listen, not continue to edit war because you read the paper differently. Doing so otherwise is blatant disruption. NW (Talk) 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you lift the ban. You are showing blatant favoritism. WMC has reverted 4 times in that article, while I on the other hand have made no further edits to the page, limiting myself to discussion of the matter on talk pages. Please advise how arguing for inclusion of a source is disruptive - that is what we are supposed to do, to take it to talk pages. This is a punitive measure solely due to your bias for WMC and to cover up the fact that no one is taking action on his 3RR violation. I have violated no rule or restriction, nor have I been previously warned, as required by CC probation. I strongly recommend that you reconsider your position. GregJackP Boomer! 12:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The mistake you are making is the same that AQFK has made: the ban was not imposed based on edit count. See [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• A trivial carification, but the block for refactoring comments was taken to ANI by Bishonen, not by WMC. . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it - already struck that part of my comments. I know we are not always on the same side of the content issues, but I would appreciate your thoughts on the ban - not necessarily at ANI (although that would also be welcome, regardless of your position for or against). E-mail would also be fine if you don't want to say anything publicly. I'm having a real difficult time understanding the logic of this, if it doesn't involve bias. I stayed off of the article and confined myself to discussion pages deliberately, so that I would not be involved in edit warring. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

I have placed a question at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_by_Jclemens that I would appreciate an answer to. I don't think it's required, but it would be nice. -Selket ^Talk 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? The lynch mob is already forming. I took the matter to the talk pages, for discussion, and did not go back to edit the article because I was trying to do the right thing. NW doesn't take any action against the pro-AGW bunch, just those he disagrees with. For example, when SA completely misrepresented 3 refs as peer-review and stating "denier" instead of what they really said in a BLP, I sent him a copy of the article that was behind a paywall. Nothing happened, SA was on the "right" side. In addition, no one will ever stand up and say that WMC is wrong, so do whatever it is that you wish to do to me. GregJackP Boomer! 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)