Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 22 August 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

• Back Pointer 1

Discussion with Kim D. Petersen

I trimmed out the bulk of the previous sections so we can focus on the most current points. I am leaving these quotes here for context:

”Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week. He said the Earth was entering the ‘first hot period’ for 60 million years when there was no ice on the plane and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life.”

— Sir David King, The Independent on Sunday, 2 May 2004

”The government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, was referring to this period when he told reporters at Tony Blair’s Climate Group launch on 27 April that ‘Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live and the rest of the globe would not sustain human life’. He warned that these conditions, with CO2 levels as high as 1,000 pm and no ice left on earth, could again be reached by 2100.”

— Sir David King, New Statesman 17 May 2004

”Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

— Sir James Lovelock, The Independent, 16 January 2006

Well the first article was a journalist describing King's testimony to the House of Commons - and the second one specifically states that British journalists wrote that King had said .... - But the easiest way to check this ... is to find the testimony (which i've done) . The correct quote is: "Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot." - iirc journalists can't have tape-recorders etc. in the HoC, so there is nothing surprising about a misquote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One of us must be confused, and I fear it is likely to be you. Please read the following CAREFULLY and then respond accordingly.

"Well the first article was a journalist describing King's testimony to the House of Commons" - I don't think this is correct. As I have pointed out and so did Channel 4, both of these quotes are from Tony Blair's Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004. The House of Commons testimony that you provide above was given on 30 March 2004. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS. Do you agree or disagree?

The first article, , is dated May 2, 2004 and contains the following "Professor Sir David King, said last week." Note that this is consistent with the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004 and is clearly inconsistent with the House of Commons on testimony on 30 March 2004. Do you agree or disagree?

The second article, , is dated 17 May 2004 and explicitly contains the following "Professor Sir David King, was referring to this period when he told reporters at Tony Blair's Climate Group launch on 27 April ...". So there is no confusion on which event this article is quoting. Do you agree or disagree?

Given that these quotes are from the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004 and NOT the House of Commons testimony on 30 March 2004, the transcript from the House of Commons tells us nothing about what King actually said at the Climate Group launch. Do you agree or disagree?

"the second one specifically states that British journalists wrote that King had said" - You must be thinking of a different article than this one, , because I cannot find any such statement contained therein. Do you agree or disagree?

Lacking any such admission of having quoted journalists by the second article, it appears that we have two independent reports from different authors which directly quote Sir David King as stating "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life" and "the rest of the globe would not sustain human life" from the same event (i.e. the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004). Do you agree or disagree?

It is unlikely that two independent authors would independently make the same misquote from the same event, which means that Sir David King most likely made the statements thus quoted (regardless of whether he had intended to or not and/or whether he thought he had some 3 years after the fact). Do you agree or disagree? --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion and a favor

Hi again GoRight. Might I suggest that you archive your talk page? It's getting a bit long.

I also have a favor to ask you. I am the only person who has been conversing with User:Hotflashhome. This editor is doing a lot of work on thermography but they also keep discussing the second law on global warming related talk pages. I was wondering if you could explain, on User talk:Hotflashhome how the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I've failed to do so, but I don't want this user to be frustrated with Misplaced Pages because this user appears to be very willing to do hard work on articles that need it. - Enuja (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking it was about time to trim down the talk page. As for User talk:Hotflashhome I saw the stuff on the GW page but haven't really engaged things there. I'll take a look and chime in on their home page. --GoRight (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Hi, You may be interested in a proposal for a new Wikiproject called Left-wing bias Watch. If you're interested, please add your comments to: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals (proposal is near the bottom of the page) Also, please feel free to add any relevant or irrelevant comments to my user talk page. Aletheon (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Res

I try not to mud-wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy, and the pig just likes it. Consider this an official request to never post on my talk page again. I will construe any further posts from you, or others acting on your behalf, as harassment. Have a great day! --Badger Drink (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You are the subject of a discussion on ANI. _D.Jameson 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, let me suggest that you refrain from arguing with those who are apparently uncivil toward you. When an editor makes an uncivil comment about you, and there were plenty made, so far, in the AN/I report. If you argue with it, it diverts attention from the original incivility. It's a political thing. It's also true that if you refrain from responding to incivility, it reduces the amount of wikifuss. If you are going to respond, think first. Is this response going to further the project? Is it going to help the community find consensus. Remember, the community is going to react. By now, you should have some sense of how the community reacts.

I find the comments that you are carefully civil before a noticeboard quite amusing, in a way. Every edit you make is recorded, and if you are only civil on a noticeboard, but not in other circumstances, it would quickly come out. However, there is on behavior you have continued, and arguing with those who are uncivil to you is one example of it, but it applies in other areas as well, which you would do well, I'd suggest, to cease. It's continuing to argue with editors outside of specific textual issues or specific necessity. Posting to Connolley's Talk page is something that I would suggest is ordinarily not a great idea for you, unless I've missed something and these edits have been leading to agreement between you and him. If he's going to be warning, you'd not be a good choice to warn him, unless you are warning him for something that, if he repeats it, you could go to AN/I and get him blocked. Consider this: if there were a prayer of success for this, you should also be able to convince someone else, preferably an administrator, to warn him.

I agree that there has been an imbalance in the global warming articles, overall, that there has been improper "ownership" of these by groups of editors. To rectify this, however, given that the imbalance is toward a majority position, will require patient and careful work, developing a consensus. There are enough Misplaced Pages editors who do understand and greatly value NPOV to balance out bias by a small group of editors; it may need to be done one edit at a time, one issue at a time, with some persistence. As I saw in the edits I looked at with your RfC, you'd make an edit that was, at least, reasonable on the face, or that could be made correct with some modification, and it would be reverted with an uncivil edit summary. While you could revert, then, at least once, pretty safely, that does enter edit warring territory, and incivility does not justify edit warring. So let the incivility lie. When it is later reviewed, as it will be if you patiently pursue WP:DR, that incivility will look really bad. If you edit war, the edit warring may make the incivility look justified.

I probably disagree with your political position re global warming, but I just as I think that public policy decisions should be based on objective science, to the extent possible, and that objective science is never a matter of majority vote, in itself, so to should the public be informed by sources that are rigorously neutral and that do not merely ratify some "majority position" as being true or the only position that we can report because of WP:UNDUE. If there is significant dissent, that dissent should be reported, and can, in fact, be fully reported (to the limit of what can be reliably sourced) within a subarticle when needed to avoid imbalancing an article on the whole subject. WP:UNDUE has, too often, been used as an excuse to exclude properly sourced material. Because I have seen quite a few issues where majority opinion was enforced in public policy decisions, and later that majority view -- asserted as if it were a consensus, sometimes because contrary views could not get published, and research that might disprove the alleged consensus couldn't find funding -- and because I've seen this cost millions of premature deaths -- I find neutrality to be urgent. And to find neutrality, we must admit for due consideration all views, not just views that are asserted to reflect a general consensus. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To summarize this: I think your contributions to Misplaced Pages have been valuable, and can be even more valuable in the future. However, there is risk involved. Choose your struggles. Get help. Avoid anything that appears uncivil, even if you could justify it, unless you are sure that it's not merely allowed, but necessary. Seek consensus, and that includes consensus with editors who have seriously opposed you. And don't argue with trolls, which I now define as someone who is baiting you. Let editors be wrong, focus on results, not on their opinions and actions. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

As is usually the case, you give very good advice. I will do my best to try and take this to heart and integrate it into my on-going approach here. I am, however, imperfect as are we all. I appreciate your help, your support, and your good advice. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

TGGWS

I'll talk a look later tonight. In principle you are right, sourced information cannot just be removed. It has to be pointed out why it is wrong. E.g. you can imagine that the source is not approppriate (like the E&E journal in case of global warming). But that requires some discussion on the talk page and a consensus there that the sourced information is not reliable. Count Iblis (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will appreciate your looking at the specifics on TGGWS when you have a chance, but I think that the broader question being raised is whether ArbCom rulings set precedents. --GoRight (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have much time yesterday. I see now that the article is locked, so it is not very urgent, I guess :) Anyway, I think it is Raul who who made the statement about ArbCom ruling, I did cite that too on the global warming page. But my idea about this is different from Raul and most other regulars at Misplaced Pages. I'm not a big fan of all these wiki rules. I've seen how they don't work and lead to problems. Writing articles while collaborating with others always requires a consensus among te editors. Witout such a consensus some editors could perhaps edit in a few sentences, but it will lead to big trouble when you try to do more than that.

So, whatever it is you want to do, you must make sure you operate within the boundaries of what most editors on that page find acceptable. I just explained here that sometimes it is better for an editor to rewrite the entire article, because then you must focus on all sides of the arguments. The examples of my own work I cited there is actually a good example of why the wiki rules like the one on OR can lead to bad articles.

What happened was that a few people had written flawed articles on thermodynamics and included a few citations. The errors were in the articles for a few years, until a few months ago when I decided to completely rewrite them. Technically, my version is in violation of OR, because I didn't bother to give citations, while the previous versions were perhaps in better compliance. Of course, I could very easily give citations. But I'm not going to do that because the mathematical derivations are there so that the article becomes verifiable. By not giving citations you invite more people to check the maths. A citation could lead to people saying: "Oh, it's cited so it must be correct, no need to check." Count Iblis (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment for GoRight RfC

I have finished revising my comment at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight#Ouside View by Abd. I promised that I would notify those who endorsed my comment so they would have an opportunity to revise their comments. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to ask you straight up - the major problems right now revolve around you reverting. Would you be able to deal with no longer being able to revert and just keep yourself to talk pages? Even if something is on the article that you agree with, could you communicate others civilly, respect their views, and discuss matters on the talk page? Would you be willing to let discussions that do not go your way end, and not persist unless they are taken up again at a later date? Would you be willing to acknowledge the amount of dedication and work that many contributors who disagree with you have put into this encyclopedia? Would you be willing to respect them even if they think that you are 100% wrong?

If you are able to do that, I would be willing to accept that you could prove to the community that you are here to help the encyclopedia. I would need a promise to support you, and I would need you to follow the above 100% or people will no longer trust you in the areas that you seem most interested in. These cannot be temporary changes of behavior, as there are many people who will follow your edits and watch you carefully for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My response to the RfC is that I will be voluntarily adopting WP:1RR for my edit/revert behavior and that I commit to a good faith effort to adhere to that (i.e. in rare circumstances I might violate WP:1RR but obviously never WP:3RR). In addition I am pledging to not add any criticism to William M. Connolley without obtaining consensus on the talk page first.

If people want more stringent restrictions than these they will have to follow WP:DR to obtain them via community consensus. My history of reverts is no more problematic than those of my opponents in these debates. They revert every bit as much as I ever have. Any edit warring where I was involved obviously involved individuals other than myself. I can't edit war with myself, and the level of edit warring has not significantly increased by my presence despite what my detractors might say. Review the edit histories and/or read Abd's independent analysis on the subject then decide for yourself what is best and respond accordingly. Review my recent edit history and look for examples of edit warring and then decide whether I have altered my behavior from what is described in Abd's review, or not.

On a separate topic, I note that you have come under fire for your involvement in the User:Wilhelmina Will DYK ban where you defended her against personal attacks. For what it's worth I support your actions there. If you are interested in getting a sense of me as an individual and whether I have a reasonable outlook on things feel free to read my input I provided in that case at WP:AN#Wilhelmina_Will.27s_DYK_topic_ban and User_talk:Abd. Maybe this will affect your opinion, maybe it won't. You decide. --GoRight (talk) 04:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I try to defend everyone on both sides of an issue, and I try to stay neutral. Why? Because I believe that everyone cares, that we are all humans, and that we all have feelings. This is the internet, and "fake", but its also real and also affects us emotionally. I am affected by a lot of what goes on, and many of the problems upset me. I don't like conflict, and I don't like fighting. However, if it comes to Dispute Resolution, then there will be problems. Thats why I came to you. If you pledged to act in a way, it will be you, and not anyone else, who was in control. You will not be under someone else's yoke, but you will be proving that you are beyond the minor things and that you are a good person worth respecting. The difference between a monk and a prisoner was that a monk chose that humble life and a prisoner was forced into it. By voluntarily restricting yourself to the talk page, you would prove to the community that you 1) want to improve pages, 2) that you want to build consensus, 3) that you refuse to disrupt article pages by warring, 4) that you do not see this as a battleground but as a place for compromise, and 5) you are willing to listen and respect others. I honestly think this choice would strengthen your position and win you many supporters. However, you need to choose it. I have probably said to much, and I have probably spent too much time in this situation. The areas seem old and dug in. The sides seem to be chosen. However, I do have hope that the above could change things. My email is always open if you need to talk. That much I can always provide. Also, I don't ask you anything beyond what I demand of myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can respect you adoption of WP:0RR, but that is a step I am unwilling to commit to. On the other hand, I think that you will find that probably 50% of my edits are actually in line with WP:0RR in the sense that I don't necessarily delete what others have contributed but I augment it to be WP:NPOV by including the other sides of the issues. For example, consider the following: Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Proposed_Resolution_.232. IMHO my opponents in that debate are biasing the article through omission, so I am merely lobbying to have the omission included as well. This would be the WP:0RR way, right? Also, many/most of my reverts are actually my restoring material I created that others have removed.

On the separate topic of Abd, I really wonder what is going on with him the past couple of days but his approach to making an unblock request is clearly counter productive here. After he and Fritzpoll seemingly patched things up a bit this afternoon I thought all we needed to do was get some clarification on the Iridescent issue to convince people to unblock him. But now that seems to be falling apart with this evidence page he is trying to prepare. Everyone already knows the history here. I was confused by Keeper76's post where he said he was going to unblock him but I guess he never did for some reason. --GoRight (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably know as well

If Abd brings up Jehochman's name or my own on his talkpage, and accuses us of various trumped-up malfeasance, we have every right to respond in that venue. In such a circumstance, he would be laughed off ANI if he tried to accuse us of disruption or harassment. This is in no way an attack upon you, but rather to let you know that J's response to your notification was not in any way out of line. _D.Jameson 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I will let Abd make his own decisions in that regard. Like I said, I only served notice since Abd is currently blocked. What, if anything, happens because of that is up to Abd. --GoRight (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not have a concept of "service of notice". There are such things as warnings, but they are best delivered by uninvolved editors. Abd, or you acting as his agent, to "warn" me is not effective at all, and could be viewed as disruptive. Abd has a very easy way out of the block, as I explained on their talk page. Hopefully Abd will modify their approach and have better results going forward. Additionally, to complain about block, Abd can talk to the blocking administrator, who is not me, or Abd can use {{unblock}} to request independent review. I'm just an ordinary editor who happened to notice the situation with User:Fritzpoll and decided to get help. Jehochman 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand all this but thanks for making sure I did. I did not mean anything by this other than for it to be on the record that you knew of Abd's position vis-a-vis posting on his talk page. Nothing more. This is commonly referred to as serving notice whether Misplaced Pages directly has a formal notion of that or not. You are obviously now aware of Abd's request so proceed how you feel is best in your interactions with Abd going forward but you won't be able to claim you didn't know of his desires. Simple as that.

I will reiterate that I have no quarrel with either of you. I was only acting in the capacity of messenger since Abd is currently blocked. --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And our point was that Abd's "desires" hold no sway if he continues to make unfounded accusations about us. We have every right to respond to these type of accusations in the forum in which they're made, rendering any "notice served" completely null and void. That's my only point, and I assume that Jehochman would concur (though I certainly do not speak for him). _D.Jameson 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but, as a mere messenger, I have no position on this point. Any official assessment of the validity of your claim is between you, Abd, and whatever forum(s) where it might come up. --GoRight (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And as I said before, he'd be laughed off ANI (or Arbcom, or wherever else) he chose to accuse either of us of "harassing" him for responding on his page to baseless accusations he makes on his page. _D.Jameson 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if not for my questioning of the propriety of the ban, I see no sign that it would have been lifted. It's not impossible, but I rather doubt that the matter would have come up at all, the most likely outcome would have been that Wilhelmina Will would simply have been history. As to being laughed off AN/I, well, I've only gone to AN/I once or twice, and the result was always exactly as I was asking. I've intervened in already existing discussions, and, I'd say, I end up with the majority, usually. I don't use AN/I as the equivalent of asking my daddy to beat up that bully down the street. Rather, I attempt to deal with situations far less disruptively. And that's what I was doing. The ban issue would have been resolved, I'd predict, in another day or two without any AN report at all, because the foundation had been laid. I'd investigated it, and had outlined it, but GoRight did the footwork which you consider pointless. Before that it was purely "he said, she said," and uninvestigated allegations by a highly biased editor, that were believed. Happens all the time, if nobody actually does the footwork. As to ArbComm, I also have no doubt but that ArbComm would have (1) lifted the topic ban and possibly reprimanded a user or two, if asked after appropriate earlier process, such as an RfC, and, as well, would rule that my block was improper, for more than one reason, and, again, there might have been a reprimand involved. Since I do not and have not asserted bad faith for any admin action, nor incompetence (and a single incident could never establish incompetence), I'd be very surprised to see any desysopping take place. The question of whether or not to go to ArbComm, however, is not based on my estimation of success; rather, it would be a last resort, if all prior efforts failed. There was, and is, plenty to do as far as due process short of ArbComm. For starters, in my case, the blocking admin could, if persuaded, simply issue a statement that the block was in error. After a discussion, any admin could annotate the block record to show that it was improper even if the blocking admin digs in her heels. These are far, far short of ArbComm, which should be -- and is -- reserved for issues that can't be resolved short of appeal to them. AN and AN/I should likewise be reserved for emergencies (AN/I) or matters where very small-scale discussion can't resolve a problem, or an administrator needs help understanding something (AN). I'm not completely clear on the function of AN, except as a somewhat less urgent place than AN/I. There is some discussion of reorganizing the whole process there, and, I'd say, attention to that is quite important.

As to the issue of harassment of me on my Talk page, precedent is pretty clear, and both you and Jehochman went beyond limits. It's moot, at the moment, unless you ignore the boundaries. And I'm not going to debate this, here; but I do have the right to ask any user to not post on my Talk page, and violation of that right, absent some clear necessity, is harassment. Jehochman, in particular, without any necessity, edit warred with me on my own Talk page. That isn't acceptable, it did not fall within a recognized exception (unblock templates after response being one). But I'm not pursuing these prior violations, that's not what we do. The warning has been made and seen, and so, I expect, there will be no repetition.

S. Dean Jameson, you remain unwelcome on my Talk. However, your participation in User:Abd/RfC is specifically invited, and you will probably get an invitation, being one who has already commented on my block. This RfC will be an attempt to discover an informed community consensus regarding my block, for the purpose of advising me as to future actions, initially, but it could also serve as a later basis for action should such be determined to be advisable, as with any RfC. It is not quite the same as an RfC in WP space, though, since I will be setting the rules and can exclude editors from participation. But it could, possibly, predict how such an RfC would turn out, unless I distort it by improperly excluding comment, and, if it is done properly, make it much easier to negotiate a resolution regarding my block. --Abd (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will make the following points here:

1. It should be obvious to all that any imposition or lifting of a ban on any user should be based solely on an objective assessment of that user's own actions and nothing more. In this case the evidence that was actually presented supported the lifting of the ban so in that sense the ban was lifted solely due to WW's own actions, as it should be.
2. While much less obvious, it should none the less be clear to all that without the actions of Abd, and to a lesser extent myself, that the ban would almost certainly never have been lifted. It would have remained in effect simply because no one would have bothered to look into the details, as was the case from the very beginning. I never did what I did to "get credit" for having overturned the ban, no do I think that was Abd's intent either. But I do take note of the fact that there are many people scurrying about trying to save face in this whole saga and vehemently declaring their support for WW now that the facts are out on the table, and also trying to downplay the import of having those facts examined and brought forth. For me, this speaks volumes and smacks very much of CYA, IMHO.
3. I support Abd's efforts to pursue process reform and improvement for the project, and in that context a review of the events that occurred as part of the WW DYK ban saga is appropriate. Without being introspective as a community we cannot seek to better ourselves in the long run. It is never useful to simply bury our mistakes for political purposes, IMHO, but the context of any such discussion, because of its obvious political sensitivities, must always be focused on retrospection for the purpose and process improvement while keeping personal issues and vendetta's out of it.

That's my $0.02. --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone wants to deflect blame, that's fine with me, as long as they don't deflect it onto someone else. I wrote what I wrote recently to counter an impression, sometimes even stated more or less directly, that, "Well, WW, you deserved a topic ban, but now that you have reformed, we'll give you another chance." Without making it pretty clear in this process that the ban was unjustified (even if technically proper, i.e., it had sufficient support in the community), this could come back later to cause problems for WW. Someone, later, could use these events and say, "See, she's doing it again," and the community sometimes falls for this argument. When it has been said that it will all be irrelevant with lapse of time and a record of good contributions, that may be true, but, I'll note, she already had a record of good contributions. There are a few things to do to complete this; they don't involve blaming anyone specific. Had she been blocked, on similarly bad evidence and argument, we'd be putting up a block log annotation so that any stain on her record will be gone. In this case, there was no log of the ban at WP:Editing restrictions, and there was no block, so that part is easier.

As to my block, I wrote many times that, if an editor has never been blocked, they aren't trying hard enough. (This is what I meant when said to Iridescent, "You don't know how happy you have made me." It's as if she had given me a barnstar, though, obviously, this could be misunderstood! I had been blocked once, but it was really pretty easy, I had only confronted a sock of User:Nrcprm2026 and an abusive IP editor, and the admin who blocked me saw it immediately and lifted the block. Naturally, I don't mean that literally, I'm sure that there are many very good and hard-working editors and administrators who have never been blocked, but I really meant this about those who try to address injustice (i.e., process errors that harm members of the community, and there is no community aside from its members, what unjustly harms one, harms all.) Almost by definition, this will arouse some opposition. I'm going to examine, closely, the conditions of my block, through User:Abd/Rfc, but this is not to "exonerate" me, nor is it intended to "accuse" others and blame them. Rather, I simply want to see what happened, and, in this, test a process that might be more effective in finding consensus when there is conflict, and that could do that with high efficiency, i.e., it need not require a noticeboard discussion that wastes hour upon hour of editor time, but only a fairly small discussion among a few editors, under deliberative rather than emergency conditions, that nevertheless might be able to find a community consensus. This is the trick: it's in my user space, because the purpose is to advise me; to advise me regarding what I did, and also about "remedies," i.e., what should I do going forward. However, unless I'm totally responsible for what happened -- i.e., I was justly and properly blocked, and the only remedy would be for me to recognize this and apologize, totally, for the disruption -- there may also be lessons for the community and some action to be taken. For example, if the block was in error, a block log annotation. Any admin could do that; but I wouldn't advise doing it -- for me -- without a community discussion (which could mean an unrestricted discussion, unlike my RfC, which I control). However, that discussion, if I've done my work well in my user space, could be very, very simple and it's possible that it wouldn't be necessary, if there is enough participation in my user space.

I recognize and understand that your intention is merely to analyze what happened in detail so that you can clearly understand it from every angle and in every way. I even have a tendency to do such analysis on my own. But you have to recognize that many (most?) people are incapable of discussing things from such an objective viewpoint, and as a result there is a reasonably high probability that your actions in doing so will only create conflict where it should not based on your true intentions.

I do understand the desire to have the record reflect reality as it transpired, so if there is reason to have a block log annotation for you I see no reason that you should not pursue obtaining such an annotation. I also understand that you don't feel that you can make that decision without conducting the detailed analysis.

I will try to find time to participate in your effort, but I was noting earlier today that I should give you some advice that you have heard a million times already. Please try to be more brief in your narratives if you wish for people to actually read them. I tend to be on your side and there are times when I look at the huge block of text and delay reading it until I feel like I have more time. Others may never come back to it. Just some food for thought. --GoRight (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, and that may even be true. If so you have nothing to fear from having been "served" then. It becomes moot. And even if it is true there was no harm caused by my having delivered a polite message, was there? --GoRight (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's harmless, but it was also rather pointless, as is this exchange. See you around the project... _D.Jameson 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Then I apologize for the distraction. --GoRight (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI Result

It seems that the ANI thread regarding you has come to the general consensus that you should be topic banned from William Connolley and related pages ("related pages" to be interpreted broadly but reasonably, if in doubt don't edit). So we're clear, that means that if you edit those pages an admin will be within his/her rights to immediately block you. I suggest that you go to the ANI thread and accept this consensus and then abide by it. I figure you'd rather hear this from me than from some other editors, and you know you've brought this on yourself with your tendentious editing there. My opinion is that the broader topic bans will not reach consensus and the discussion on them seems to be dying, so you're free to continue editing on other topics. You should continue to limit your reverts and remain civil, which you've been better about lately. Oren0 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The thread is now archived, your restrictions are noted there and in Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions. I will likely close the RfC soon as well since it was tied to the ANI thread pretty well. Wizardman 23:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If I'm correct, if you have any questions about the extent of the ban, you would ask Wizardman, as the closing admin. I have some questions about the appropriateness of the ban being decided on AN/I, given that a user conduct RfC remained open; an RfC is a deeper, longer, deliberative process and shouldn't be inferior to AN/I. But I have no idea if it would be useful to challenge this, and I've not examined your post-RfC behavior. I've been hearing some pretty pessimistic opinions about ArbComm lately (from admins). In any case, I'll offer you whatever assistance is possible and permissible. You could, for example, drop a comment on my Talk about some issue that could be under the topic ban. Perhaps some reference to reliable source. If I agree that its appropriate for an article, I have three choices: I could actually put it in the article, if I believe I understand the issues sufficiently, or I could put it in article Talk for review and not put it in myself. Thus providing you with filtered access to the articles. While some might think of this as circumventing the ban, it's not. It's preventing damage from the total exclusion of your POV. I'm not going to edit war, period. I'm not going to be uncivil, period, and if I do, it's on me, not you. You won't be telling me what to do. And there needn't be any secret communication between us, just as with Wilhelmina Will, it should work if it is open. If I see prejudice appearing there due to your involvement, I'd address that directly, that would not be proper. The editor who originally came up with content is actually irrelevant, it's the content itself that matters. Besides, I might get some more article space edits. That's what some are screaming for me to do, right? Always listen to criticism, it often contains really great suggestions. --Abd (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of assistance, where permissible. I'll keep that in mind but, honestly, I don't anticipate needing such assistance since I am going to adhere to the letter and the spirit of the ban. The only thing that it actually restricts me from is writing neutral or even positive things about William M. Connolley. Anything that would truly be a WP:BLP violation is already restricted anyway, so as far as a restriction goes it is pretty minor. Better to just put this behind me and adhere to the community's request, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not dream of suggesting that you evade the consensus. However, there may be an article that isn't about William M. Connolley, but that might mention him. I have in mind Lawrence Solomon, which currently doesn't mention him, though I think he is mentioned in some of the sources. Further, suppose you find a notable source about William M. Connolley, and nobody has brought it to the article for consideration. There is nothing wrong with your informing another editor of this, who would make his or her own decision as to what to do with it. The ban would not be evaded. The reasons behind the ban would not be evaded, particularly if you, in communicating this source, were scrupulously neutral and civil, kind of on the lines of "Did you see this? Would you think this should be in the article?" Definitely not "Please put this in the article for me." Or, worse, "Now we can expose him." But, look, it wasn't so much about that particular article, might be good for you to stay entirely away from it. It's about other articles, if some linkage with WMC appears and the admin supervising the ban thinks you should stay away from it. This protects you, and it protects the project against your alleged incivility and tendentious argument. You don't argue with anybody about it. You've merely made a suggestion, not in Article talk, where often topic banned editors can make suggestions (User:PHG has a topic ban, set by ArbComm, which permits him to make suggestions in article talk in the field, with civility restrictions.), but to another editor, and incivility isn't transitive; if the original communication doesn't contain incivility, then if there is incivility in the consequential communication, it's not the fault of the original editor. I.e., if I pick up your suggestion, go to the article, put it in, and then argue uncivilly for it, it would be my responsibility, it wouldn't be a violation of your topic ban. Unless somehow you controlled that incivility. That wouldn't be with me! But whatever, following my advice, I suppose, could be hazardous for your health. Cough! Cough! --Abd (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm.. Well, with the way the topic ban is written, it is rather tricky. It states that the ban is to pages relating to Connolley, to be interpreted broadly. However, it seems that the two articles you have pointed out are related to global warming instead (which there was no consensus on a ban). That being said, I would tread very carefully on the two articles you have mentioned, since they are in areas which you could have been topic banned in. If an admin is convinced of a connection between WMC and the articles you've mentioned, you could still be blocked. The best I can tell you is if in doubt, don't edit it. If the article has zero to do with WMC as you claim, then there should be no problems. (Both Connolley and RealClimate are mentioned in the article Global Warming controversy, but in completely different sections) Hope I answered your question, I feel like I talked in circles a bit. Wizardman 02:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, GoRight. I just today discovered the ANI. Pedictable. I have not abandoned Misplaced Pages, despite this kind of thing, because Misplaced Pages's a pretty good idea, and it works pretty well, except for a few topics whose pages are protected by those who need to deny that anyone could legitimately have a contrary opinion. The structure of Misplaced Pages guarantees that numbers rule, but truth has staying power that falsehood lacks. Read my prediction about the future of the AGW movement on my talk page. All the best, Vegasprof (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sanction

Hm, the addition of "broadly interpreted" is rather odd. In a way, by having the ban in related pages, broadly interpreted is almost implied, but at the same time, the voting was on pages related to William Connolley, that's it. I think ncmvocalist just put it in as a guide for admins about where to rule should the terms of the topic ban be violated. Granted, broadly interpreted would add in most global warming articles to an extent, and there was no consensus on a ban for those articles. Part of me wants to remove it from that, but I don't need the question of how it should be interpreted asked somewhere down the line. For now I'm going to remove it then, since at this point you probably know what pages relate to WMC and which don't. Wizardman 14:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I had asked for a final crisp version of the terms and conditions to have been created and that those endorsing the ban explicitly endorse the final language for exactly this type of reason. Since this never occurred, through no fault of your own, the closest thing that we have is the exact language that was voted on which you used both in the closing of the discussion and in the editing restrictions index page. I consider that to be fair. Adding "broadly construed" completely after the fact I do not, especially by one of the people bringing the action against me. --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at your latest post shortly. Just to point out though, User:Ncmvocalist is not an administrator. Wizardman 18:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I stand corrected on his being an administrator. I believe that this calls his actions even more into question then. Why is he closing anything, or creating community sanction files in my user space? As a normal editor I seriously consider these actions to be harassment. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

While the comment is innocuous, please also take note of Ncmvocalist altering the final record after the close and marking it as a minor edit: --GoRight (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the RfC, Since you had been sanctioned as a result of the ANI thread, and there was no consensus regarding anyone else, the close itself I don't mind. Though I don't think he should have went and done it in this case, I would say just don't worry about the RfC, since the only thing that can come out of those are non-binding decisions anyway. Wizardman 14:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)