User talk:Climatepedia

September 2022[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make disruptive edits. Climatepedia (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. McSly (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make disruptive edits. Climatepedia (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted an obviously false "hoax" tag on a solidly sourced article, based on a "citation" to a YouTube video from some rando fringe commentator. That's disruption. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in climate change. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

DanCherek (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive and tendentious editing.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Salvio

14:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Climatepedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't do disruptive editing as the hypothesis that humans cause climate change contradicts common sense and the laws of physics.[1] Climatepedia (talk) 10:32 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Sorry, you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

I requested an unblock by saying "I didn't do disruptive editing as the hypothesis that humans cause climate change contradicts common sense and the laws of physics" but it was declined because I'm allegedly not here to build an encyclopedia]] but the truth is that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Climatepedia (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you are blocked, you must make another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Climatepedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I requested an unblock by saying "I didn't do disruptive editing as the hypothesis that humans cause climate change contradicts common sense and the laws of physics" but it was declined because I'm allegedly not here to build an encyclopedia but the truth is that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Climatepedia (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had to know making essentially the same request as a previously declined unblock request would be a waste of time. Declined, and you are in danger of losing talk page access if you continue wasting our time like this. Yamla (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Climatepedia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry for adding misinformation. Climatepedia (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're a sock puppet of User:MinunBoo and probably User:MacaroniMaster5, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock discussion[edit]

You'll do better to explain why you were deliberately adding information you knew to be false and why we should trust you'll be constructive going forward. Furthermore, why did you repeatedly deny your deliberate disruptive editing, falsely claiming you were here to build an encyclopedia? Nothing here indicates what you plan to write about if unblocked, for example. --Yamla (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Yamla

I was deliberately adding information I knew to be false because I was supporting the Creative Society. The reason I supported the Creative Society was because of their foundations: https://creativesociety.com/8-foundations-of-a-creative-society. The reason you should trust that I'll be constructive going forward is because I'll only add information that's neutral and attributed to reliable sources. If unblocked, I would probably edit articles at Portal:Climate change and Portal:Music. Climatepedia (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any edits involving climate change. Needs a WP:TOPICBAN. And we are supposed to believe they will suddenly become constructive? Dubious. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Deepfriedokra. In general, I am a huge fan of WP:ROPE and, in principle, I'm not necessarily opposed to unblocking this user if we get believable assurances that he will edit constructively going forward. However, in the light of his edits so far and of the fact that the topic area is already fraught with disruption, I strongly oppose allowing Climatepedia to make any edits relating to climate change.

Salvio

21:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I think they are begging the question of "why?" -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

excuse the necroposting but doing a bit of research says that this group he pushed is a known climate denial group, according to the bbc. Derpdart56 (talk) 19:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]