Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Desired outcome

AJL needs to recognise that he is POV-pushing; that a large number of experienced editors are reverting his changes for good reason; that he should clean up his use of references (and that involves understanding what references are for); and that wiki doesn't exist to promote his POV.

Description

AJL is a nice guy, kind to animals and deeply concerned about the future of the planet. He is terribly interested in geoengineering and the possibility of runaway climate change, whatever it might be. But he is incurably over-enthusiastic, has no understanding of the meaning of references, doesn't really understand what he is talking about, and is a determined POV pusher in articles related to global warming. Were he POV-pushing in the "skeptic" direction he would have been stomped on harshly; because "his heart is in the right place", so to speak, everyone tries to be nice. But he has exhausted everyone's patience. Most of his edits are quickly reverted, which wastes some time but not much; but worse are the articles where his edits have got wrapped into the article and will need to be disentangled.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. AJL's failure to understand references is legendary. This diff [1] is a priceless example I've added references which appear to use the term as I've discussed. They're closed documents tho, so if anyone could check that would be cool - or put another way, he is adding refs he hasn't even read on the off chance that they might be relevant. Predictably enough, when done this way it simply doesn't work [2] was the relevant edit, and was wrong: the LIA and MWP are examples of climate change, but not abrupt climate change. [3] shows you his attitude to books - he doesn't use them - they can't be checked, it seems. And libraries? Obsolete: [4].
2. Cargo-cult attitude [5]: appears to believe that using "doi refs" is all you need to do.
3. Total failure to understand what are reliable sources: [6] There's been an ongoing struggle to get the truth about expected GW into this article. There's been a gross over-reliance on the widely-discredited IPCC 4th report.; also [7] etc etc.
4. Pastes stuff into wiki that he doesn't even understand [8] I just posted text I was supplied with by a researcher, Albert Kallio. It needs improvement if it's to stay, so I've asked him to contribute. That was for [9].
5. Less exciting, User_talk:Andrewjlockley#Future_journal_articles is about him using wiki storage for his own purposes.
6. But fundamentally, the problem is that he just doesn't understand the science. [10] is a talk page comment (one of several [11]) trying to justify this [12] and related reverts. What he fails to understand is that the thermal inertia of the climate system means that warning continues even after emissions stop rising. This is because he has never read the literature; but what is less excusable is that he continues like this [13] even after he has been pointed to exact online sources.
7. Edit warring [14]
8. [15] Arctic geoengineering is an example of an article that has required heavy remediation after his edits
9. [update: AJL mentions Stratospheric sulfur aerosols as one of his successes, so let me point out this is one of his disaster areas. I picked up his version [16] it was full of rubbish that he had inserted, and needed vast swathes hacked out: [17] removes utter irrelevance; [18] and [19] shows AJL not understanding the difference between stratosphere and troposphere; [20] removes unref'd speculation and irrelevance. AJL appears to think he can spam wiki and rely on everyone else to clean up after him, whilst reverting efforts to clean up after him William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [21] - me trying to offer advice
2. User_talk:Andrewjlockley#When_editing_the_lead_section of_Global_warming.2C please_go_to_talk_page_first - User:Enuja tries to reason with AJL
3. Talk:Global_warming#abrupt_climate_change_in_lead - E again
4. User_talk:Andrewjlockley#Citations - User:Awickert tries to explain citations
5. [22] - KDP and AW both try to explain things
6. [23] [Update by Awickert (talk)] - WMC and AW try to explain scientific journals and justifiability
7. [24] [Update by Awickert (talk)] AJL and AW discuss. After pain, some success in bridging their large gap in viewpoint of what constitutes a reliable source and where to look for one

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. Pick most of the diffs from the dispute section - they are current - the behaviour continues

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Awickert (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
2. --BozMo talk 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --OlYeller^Talktome 19:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
4. - Atmoz (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

My citations used to be weak, but I reckon I'm not given credit for the increased quality recently. Most of the 'examples' above aren't representative of what I'm like now.

As regards being a POV-pusher, I'm trying to improve coverage of topics I'm interested in and regard as important. When I started editing, there was very little on non-linear climate change and geoengineering. Both of these are important subjects, and coverage has been massively improved. I don't think this makes me a POV-pusher. For example geoengineering is, if anything, too critical of geoengineering.

I've created lots of articles, and spent a long time editing others, so I'm bound to have a few reverts etc. Most of the low-traffic stuff I've written is still up in largely the original format, and a lot of my contributions have stuck on high-traffic articles.

The more I learn the more I adapt my writing. For example, I now present the risks of runaway climate change in greater detail, as I now understand the topic & literature better. WMC and I have both learned from doing this article, and the result is a decent treatment of a difficult topic.

When I started editing I was doing mostly new, low-traffic articles, such as stratospheric sulfur aerosols. I used general media sources, such as the BBC, which at the time I felt appropriate. I got told off and now use peer reviewed citations almost exclusively, using the DOI template. The bot was broken and I had some trouble with the java tools, which delayed my implementation of some advice I was given.

When I did higher traffic articles, I didn't use the TP at first. Now I almost always announce such edits and take into account TP comments. This has been noted by other users (on GW TP)

Whenever I get reverted, I try and understand exactly what the problem was before making new edits. A lot of reverts have been for minor issues that could have been solved with an edit, not with a massive revert.

I'm glad I get tested by other users, and I thank them when they point out my weaknesses - provided that they're polite and constructive.

If you look at the reverts I've had, around half (at a guess) have been from WMC. You can see from my edits of his work that we have both pointed out the other's mistakes and poor reading of sources. If the truth be known, we actually make a bloody good editing team, which is why I TP him to prompt him into savaging my work! Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. AJL's failure to understand references is legendary. This diff [25] is a priceless example I've added references which appear to use the term as I've discussed. They're closed documents tho, so if anyone could check that would be cool - or put another way, he is adding refs he hasn't even read on the off chance that they might be relevant. Predictably enough, when done this way it simply doesn't work [26] was the relevant edit, and was wrong: the LIA and MWP are examples of climate change, but not abrupt climate change. [27] shows you his attitude to books - he doesn't use them - they can't be checked, it seems. And libraries? Obsolete: [28].

Closed documents can be partially read on my browser, and I only use this method when checking a term is used. I cited a book today, but prefer peer-reviewed journals as I've been advised to use.

1. Cargo-cult attitude [29]: appears to believe that using "doi refs" is all you need to do.

Or peer-reviewed science, to put it another way.

1. Total failure to understand what are reliable sources: [30] There's been an ongoing struggle to get the truth about expected GW into this article. There's been a gross over-reliance on the widely-discredited IPCC 4th report.; also [31] etc etc.

AR4 underestimates the problem - even those who wrote it say so http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/su-ccl021009.php

1. Pastes stuff into wiki that he doesn't even understand [32] I just posted text I was supplied with by a researcher, Albert Kallio. It needs improvement if it's to stay, so I've asked him to contribute. That was for [33].

That was ages ago. I'm not even completely sure it was me.

1. Less exciting, User_talk:Andrewjlockley#Future_journal_articles is about him using wiki storage for his own purposes.

I've agreed to move it soon.

1. But fundamentally, the problem is that he just doesn't understand the science. [34] is a talk page comment (one of several [35]) trying to justify this [36] and related reverts. What he fails to understand is that the thermal inertia of the climate system means that warning continues even after emissions stop rising. This is because he has never read the literature; but what is less excusable is that he continues like this [37] even after he has been pointed to exact online sources.

The 'online sources' don't show the outcome of a zero-emissions scenario. Read the graph at "Long+Term+Climate+Change+and+Commitment"&source=bl&ots=hxhry1piL2&sig=zkeZZ9JbqkSKsNUIydBrdr-CtXg&hl=en&ei=pbiiScj9MNSzjAer1bDqCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA823,M1 I've actually been trying to get edits in showing the inertia effect for some time!!!

1. Edit warring [38]

A technical breach, if at all. No action taken on WMCs 3RR complaint.

1. [39] Arctic geoengineering is an example of an article that has required heavy remediation after his edits

It's a work in progress.

1. [update: AJL mentions Stratospheric sulfur aerosols as one of his successes, so let me point out this is one of his disaster areas. I picked up his version [40] it was full of rubbish that he had inserted, and needed vast swathes hacked out: [41] removes utter irrelevance; [42] and [43] shows AJL not understanding the difference between stratosphere and troposphere; [44] removes unref'd speculation and irrelevance. AJL appears to think he can spam wiki and rely on everyone else to clean up after him, whilst reverting efforts to clean up after him William M. Connolley (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[

I've now moved the geoeng bits WMC hacked out to stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering). A split or mergesection could and should have been used in this situation. I've tagged the article for cleanup, and will get to it later.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Update

I've fixed the situation Stephen was talking about. The page wasn't on my watchlist, so I didn't 'hear' him. Please note the DOI bot is still bust, which isn't in my gift to fix.79.65.248.188 (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the error Boris spotted recently.

I've updated the discussion page so anyone who'd like to help me get better can chat me there. Thank you!

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Update 2

As a result of the trolling accusations and general vitriol I've experienced after making a legitimate edit on WMC's WP entry, I've now decided to stop doing any significant WP:BLP work. Previously I've done about ten such articles. It's disappointing to see that flaming has finally forced me to withdraw from a fairly significant aspect of my WP work. However, I've been pushed to the point where I'd rather just not bother trying to help anymore.Andrewjlockley (talk) 04:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Boris - I don't 'use references I don't understand'. I'm simply seeking to ensure that I'm using the most appropriate references, or checking that I've interpreted them correctly.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by MarkR1717

William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen are consistently censoring any information which deviates from their own narrow worldview. They should themselves be censured for this. I know other contributors have raised this before, particularly with reference to Connolley, but they seem to be slow to change their behaviour.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. MarkR1717 (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Stephan Schulz

Andrewjlockley tries to improve his modus operandi with some success, but he still fails to work with others in a respectful manner. As an example, after long explanations he has finally learned how to use the cite templates with a digital object identifier. That is ok in many situations, and certainly an improvement to uncited additions or those referenced to blogs, press statements, and uncontrolled web pages he used previously. But, given the rate of really questionable edits to stable, high-profile pages, and the delay until Doibot expands the definitions, this is really not good enough. It means if I have doubts about a cite, I have to go find the paper via the DOI to verify his claims, and so has every other editor, when a full citation would make verification much easier. And if the result is unclear, Andrew is less than helpful, as shown here. He asks others to find better sources for his claim, but does not even have the courtesy to answer the simple question if we have even identified the source correctly.

Andrew apparently rarely checks his sources more than superficially, and he cites out-of-context or beyond the claims of the source. My impression is that he seem to consider papers not a source of knowledge, but as a quarry to quote-mine for support of his pre-formed POV, and that he likewise does not really seem to expect others to want to read the sources, but only goes through the motions in a cargo-cult like manner to fulfill Wikipedia's requirements without really understanding why we have those.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

   Update: Andrew has now updated the doi in question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2. --BozMo talk 11:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
3. --OlYeller^Talktome 17:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
4. The "cargo cult" use of references is most wearisome; every time I see one of his articles I get a sinking feeling, "How many of his references actually support the material to which they are attached?" It makes a lot of work for other people having to continually double-check. Some say he is getting better but I just corrected another one a few minutes ago.[45] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
5. - Atmoz (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by ChyranandChloe

Andrewjlockley joined on 23 April 2007[46], however he did not begin editing until 14 December 2008.[47] Since then he has been focused only exclusively on climate change topics, which validates a possible accusations of WP:SPA, from which Andrewjlockly action's may be regarded as having a narrow focus bordering with advocacy. This was a prediction I was holding up until this point.

Andrewjlockly has not been blocked.[48] He has not been summoned to arbitration. And much of the disruption is centered on editors who he works all too closely with. Instead many of his actions are in good faith working towards constructive outcomes. I do not believe the I don't like him attitude coupled with lack of "Applicable policies and guidelines" is enough to condemn him to any sanctions, nor is it the purpose of an RFC/U. Instead, the purpose of this RFC are: to inform him of those actions which we deem as disruptive, and to provide him with the opportunity to make amends. I think WMC, Stephan, and so forth go over those actions which they do not approve of. It is Andrewjlockley's job to lead his own self-improvement.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by OlYeller21

I stumbled upon this issue right before it went into RfC. I've kept myself out of the line of fire for the most part but some new things have come up and I think they probably need addressing in this RfC. I was glad to see someone commend AJL for his good behavior recently until he snapped back that he's basically doing what he's always done (implying that he learned nothing from the RfC where he claimed to accept the constructive criticism given). Then I see that AJL edited WMC's main space article and was met with much resistance and was essentially accused of trolling in 2 locations by 2 different people. Editing WMC's article was way out of line considering their past conflicts. When it comes down to it, I don't beleive that AJL has learned anything from this RfC and that his actions will continue to be unconstructive to Wikipedia in a significant way.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. OlYeller^Talktome 01:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2. Regretfully, I have to agree. Note he recently acknowledged that he continues to use references he doesn't understand. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
3. A recent edit. Of course, a casual look at the link[49] shows that AJL couldn't even get the author right. I cannot take any of his edits seriously because his references continually do not support the text he adds. At this point, I would like to see AJL topic-banned from all GW/CC topics, broadly construed for continued POV pushing. -Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.