Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 23 January 2010 (→Blocked (2): Hopefully the third time will be a charm.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical References

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.

Raul's Attack Page

• User:Raul654/GoRight
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Raul654/GoRight

My Response Page

• User:GoRight/Raul654

Notes for when I can edit again

Arbcom Rulings:

• Modifying other users' comments (OMG, he edited that exact page .)

Users Requesting to be Informed of Topics of Interest

The following users have explicitly requested that I keep them informed of topics I believe that they would be interested in:

• User:Abd
• User:John G. Miles

December 2009

Valid NPOV defending effort by GoRight. I support any appeal. Admin Tedder corrupted my intent for placing the POV-tag. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Zulu, if you have issues with me, please take them to my talk page or to WP:ANI. tedder (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The simple fact of the matter is that I have not committed any blockable offense here. There is a valid WP:NPOV dispute occurring at the article in question. I am well within my rights to post a NPOV tag on that article, I was following the requested steps outlined by User:William M. Connolley who is one of the primary editors from the other side of this dispute. I have been making extensive use of the talk page in support of my position both prior to and subsequent to my placing the NPOV tag on the article. While I have reverted the NPOV tag a few times so have my opponents, and I have not committed any WP:3RR violations. There is no emergency requiring that I be blocked. There is no danger to the encyclopedia by my placing an NPOV tag on that article. I can only assume that Tedder means for this block to be punitive, not preventative, which makes it inconsistent with WP:BLOCK. I therefore request that I be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not permitted. The reason for this is that edit-warring is an ineffective way to solve disputes. The use of repeated reversion rather than discussion is only permissible in emergency situations, such as those caused by defamatory content. Unless you can explain why you felt that there was an emergency that meant that you needed to revert immediately, this block would appear to be valid. CIreland (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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.

Unblocking admin, and GoRight, you were blocked for edit warring with the NPOV template, against this: Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#Cease-fire on POV template. This was not punitive, you have clearly been edit warring with the template, which is actively being discussed on the talk page without consensus. tedder (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the complete text of Misplaced Pages:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F, but I wish to highlight the following portions thereof:

"By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required."

"Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I also refer you to Template:POV and note that I was merely following the instructions described there. I also highlight the following text from the template itself:

"Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

which clearly indicates that the intention is for the NPOV tag to be left on the page until the dispute is resolved. Note that the dispute is not yet resolved. tedder's actions are clearly at odds with both the letter and the intent of the NPOV tag as described in the essay linked above. I can only assume that the existence of the essay suggests that there is some level of precedent for how these situations are normally handled, and that I am acting in a manner consistent with those precedents. --GoRight (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How can one side in an edit war be blocked, and not the other? Sounds punitive to me. Having said that, GoRight: even if you are in the right here, you of all people should know the playing field is not level on these pages. A POV tag is not worth giving them an excuse to block you. ATren (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tedder, given this result I intend to raise this issue at WP:AN because I while I accept that you are merely attempting to contain the edit war you are also using your admin bit to prevent me from utilizing the NPOV tag for its clearly intended purpose, and are thereby, in effect at least, aiding one side in what is fundamentally a content dispute. I wish to seek guidance at WP:AN related to the proper use of the NPOV template as well as the community norms for such use.

If I agree not to restore the NPOV tag until the matter is discussed at WP:AN and I further agree to abide by any decision that arises out of that discussion, will you agree to unblock me? --GoRight (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I'll happily unblock you given those limitations. Additionally, please leave this section on this page until the AN/ANI discussion is over, okay? tedder (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please don't forget about the autoblocks that typically get setup as well. Thanks.

Just to be clear on what we are agreeing to, I will also be free to edit elsewhere (i.e. other than just WP:AN) and to continue the discussion on Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change subject to the usual WP:CIVIL rules, correct? --GoRight (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked you and I think I cleared the autoblock- let me know if that doesn't appear to be the case. You are free to edit anywhere, including Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change, paying special mind to WP:CIVIL and the aforementioned NPOV tag on the article in question.

Let me know when you've posted to AN- link to it here and on my talk page. tedder (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --GoRight (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Involvment" checker

Since the GUI version was so bloated, I went ahead and put together/commented up a trimmed-down command-line version of the tool at User:MastCell/ContribCheckerCL. Works pretty well for me, and it's handy since it spits out a set of tab-delimited rows that can be sucked up by Excel or other data-crunching utilities. Let me know if you find it useful. MastCell  00:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

WVBluefield

Your request for a review of the evidence and block is perfectly reasonable. After all, I do have a belly button and make mistakes!

I sent the following message to the functionaries list thread where I detailed the evidence:

"GoRight has requested a review from three CheckUser enabled editors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AVassyana&action=historysubmit&diff=335216367&oldid=335179280

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:WVBluefield#December_2009

If some people could review the case and provide feedback, it would be sincerely appreciated. If you need any further details or have any questions, please let me know.

Pete"

User:MastCell and User:Dougweller are also aware of an evidence summary. I left a message asking them to chime in with their opinions and impressions.

I believe that should fulfill your request for additional review. If I can be of further assistance in this regard, or if you feel another venue or method is necessary or more appropriate, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your prompt action in this case. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. Again, if I can be of further assistance or you have any further feedback, please feel free to leave me a message. Vassyana (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You are blocked. Basically for being a complete waste of time, but your block log gives more specifics. Come back when you have something constructive to add. Viridae 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read Viridae's response to me on his talk page before doing anything hasty. --TS 06:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll say what I said there, here for ease of reading. This isn't supposed to be an infinite/permanent block, just indefinite because the length depends on GoRight shaping up and treating this place like a collaborative project. When he indicates he would like to edit again in a collaborative manner, I will quite happily unblock or someone else can do so for me. Until then though, he is not worth the time being wasted on him by countless volunteers with better to do. Viridae 07:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you are aware, but for the sake of convenience, here is a link to {{unblock}}. If an unblock is requested, I would not mind if whoever answers the request were to consult at my talk/email if Viridae is not around. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resetting. OK, upon further reflection and off-wiki advice, message received. I hereby agree to be more constructive. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): per behavioural promises Request handled by: Viridae Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Can you please expand on what you mean? and understanding of the behaviour that got your here is key. I am looking for promises to stop treating the place like such a battleground. Throwing around accusations of involvment at all and sundry and making a huge fuss and drama is incredibly disruptive. Some good faith, a lot less drama and a bit more understanding of those around you would make the place a more collaborative environment. Viridae 21:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, seriously? You haven't even been able to state with -specifics- that YOU understand the behaviour that got him here. Unblock, this is embarassing. Arkon (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to address the specific behavior you identified, however I reserve the right to make use of the available WP:DR and appeals processes that have been established here for various purposes in a reasonable manner. It should also be noted that my new found position is in line with one of your main points which was wasting the community's time, or rather a desire that I NOT waste it.

I will even go so far as to say that I acknowledge that you, Lar, and Jehochman have all had the best interests of the project in mind throughout this entire regrettable incident and that I shall bear none of you any ill will because of it. End of statement. --GoRight (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight was vexed for harmless appeals. How can one answer for disruptions without specific diff to educate all ... without starting with bad faith assumptions. It's like a spanking without clear reason. A frivolous block made worst, just so the blocker can justify themselves with further inquisitional demands. Move on both of you. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Viridae, the behavior on the GW pages has been terrible for at least a year now, and I'm not talking about GoRight. GoRight might have crossed a line here, but many other editors have been crossing lines for quite some time. As an example, I've seen a bunch of cases where the same 4-5 editors tag team to enforce their own POV and create a hostile environment for whomever disagrees with them. Their behavior includes frequent egregious violations such as removing talk page comments they disagree with, then edit-warring to keep them removed. I've seen it at least half a dozen times just in the last few months. So singling out GoRight for "wikilawyering" seems a bit over the top. In any case, I hope you (as an uninvolved) will take the same strong stance when others in this debate cross lines, even if they are long term editors with high edit counts. ATren (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you. Please remember the autoblocks. --GoRight (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

One more quick item. Can you unprotect my user page please. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All set. Happy trails. You could help with John James Powers if you are looking for something to do. Jehochman 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Flickr and BLP

How would you feel about using a less-unflattering, CC-licensed image from Flickr if it was uploaded by Lord Monckton himself? Would you still have the same objection under BLP? If this was to occur, it would be a shame if we couldn't use it... Thparkth (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If Lord Monckton himself uploads the photo under a suitable license this is clearly allowed under WP:BLPSPS since he is the subject in question. --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So would you argue that we should not include a user-generated photo of Pamela Anderson in her article, then? And all the other BLPs where user-generated photos are used? There are thousands, you know. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's just a picture of a dress shop dummy. There are some pictures of real people, such as Drew Barrymore. --TS 02:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless Pamela Anderson sent along a dress shop dummy to represent her at "the 6th Annual Hollywood Style Awards, Beverly Hills, CA on Oct. 10, 2009", as the caption says, I rather think it really is Pammy in that photo... -- ChrisO (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it could be botox. --TS 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've emailed Monckton to ask if he would consider making a neutral picture of himself available under a free license. Thparkth (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, I was wanting to do something similar but I didn't know how to contact him. He may, or may not, be willing to do so, however. If he grants free license then all manner of vandalism can be committed to the image once it has been released. This is why celebrities tend to want to control the use of their images. --GoRight (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the current policy, yes these are not allowed. The number does not matter as WP:BLPSPS makes no provision for an exception based on the convenience, or lack thereof, to wikipedia editors. Should any of those images be challenged as this one is, then yes they should be removed. I am not calling for a full review of such images, only this one. As KDP likes to say, every situation is different and each case must be decided on its own merits.

In any event if the discussion at ANI decides that I am wrong, I shall abide by that decision. And Tony should stop trying to close the discussion. That is the job of a neutral party. --GoRight (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI is the place to ask for admin assistance. They don't adjudicate, they just use the tools if it's necessary. No admin assistance was required (as I remarked earlier in the discussion). If you're serious about not allowing photos taken by Wikipedians, I wish you the best of luck. You'll need it to push that policy home. --TS 02:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#User-created images. Misplaced Pages has always had a policy of "encouraging users to upload their own images". BLP has, in my experience, never been used before to argue against user-created content, and the authors of BLP certainly never meant it to prevent what has been standard practice on Misplaced Pages since the project was founded. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take no position on this other than to say that if the policies are in conflict then they need to be reconciled in an appropriate venue and by neutral parties. In this instance, my good friend ChrisO is not a neutral party. --GoRight (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, you're on your own on this one. Nobody is going to agree to a major change in Misplaced Pages's standard practices that would force the purging of thousands of completely innocuous images from thousands of articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, then the neutral administrators at ANI will inform me of such. Until then you shouldn't be editing policy pages after the fact. --GoRight (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutral administrator here. ChrisO is correct. AniMate 02:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly within your rights to close the discussion if you feel it is best to do so at this time. I would ask that you reconsider and leave it open for long enough to at least get a few others to consider the topic. --GoRight (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it up, it's a complete waste of time. You're effectively arguing to overturn a founding principle of Misplaced Pages - the use of free, user-generated content. You could spend a few days being told "no" by everyone in various ways or you could move on now and do something more productive. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your last block was for "Wikilawyering, wasting the community's time, forum shopping, inability to edit collaberatively, general waste of time." You are currently under discussion at Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement and on the talk page. I urge you to let this go and find a more productive use of your time, because my observations of you today are starting to make me understand why you were indefinitely blocked. AniMate 03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

True but no evidence of most of those charges was ever provided by the blocking admin when specifically asked multiple times which actions supported those allegations. I agreed to address the specific items that he had cited which I have done and not repeated.

Regardless, was my reading of WP:BLPSPS inaccurate in some way? If not, how is that wikilawyering? As I said, if the issue is closed at ANI with myself being told that I was wrong I would abide by that advice. I have done nothing to contradict that pledge. --GoRight (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been closed, and there is unquestionable consensus that you were wrong. Given the history and the extensive discussion the image had already received on the article's talk page, I have no doubt that this was a case of wikilawyering as an excuse for violating wp:3rr in a content dispute. I strongly suggest that use more appropriate tactics, such as WP:3O and WP:RfC, in the future. Rvcx (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective, but I am more interested in the opinions of neutral administrators (owing simply to the fact that their opinions and viewpoints on policy have been vetted to some level by the community). As for the WP:3RR I don't believe that I actually violated that, did I? --GoRight (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not one, but two reversions where you explicitly claimed immunity from WP:3RR, effectively declaring the right to edit-war to the death over this. That's not a productive way to engage other editors. Rvcx (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I asked whether I had violated WP:3RR. The propriety of my edit summaries is another matter entirely, and one that can certainly be debated. I acted according to what the policies said I should do. --GoRight (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As another neutral admin comment: AniMate is quite right. Both about the interpretation of RS with respect to images, and about his warning against disruptive wiki-lawyering. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• GoRight, you don't have a leg to stand on with your assertion that we can't upload properly licensed images from Flickr to biographies. This is pure tendentious, frivolous nonsense and you'll get yourself restricted if you continue along this path. Jehochman 13:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please don't use biased language like "pure tendentious, frivolous nonsense". I was making a good faith argument firmly grounded in WP:BLP as it was written. Since that policy appears to have been in conflict with the policy on images, and it is apparently common community practice to allow such SPS to be used, my good friend ChrisO was kind enough to update WP:BLPSPS to resolve this conflict and several independent editors appear to have confirmed his interpretation. As I have said all along, if the ANI discussion determined that I was wrong I would abide by that decision. It appears that ANI has so determined and I have done nothing to challenge that decision once it was properly closed. I feel it is inappropriate to call me to task for asking the neutral administrators at ANI to render a decision when my actions were so clearly and directly in line with an important policy such as WP:BLP as it was written at the time I raised the issue. Do you disagree that WP:BLPSPS disallowed all manner of self-published material as it was written at the time I raised the issue? --GoRight (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Your concerns were reasonable and I was glad to see them discussed and resolved in a mostly collegial fashion. It's too bad that some editors use every dispute as an opportunity to attack those they disagree. The discussion was actually quite interesting and the issues worth considering. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight is a Wiki Hero

For the record I am damn impressed with GoRight. He tirelessly plays underdog, points out faulty logic, takes on user cabals with gusto and generally seems to have a great time doing it.

What our bitter complainers don't seem to understand is: He makes this entire site better! This is because if you dare post anything poorly sourced or smacks of groupthink in his area of interest, he's going to nail you to a board in public.

Yes, you're not going to like it. Yes, you may be embarrassed. But in many cases this is the only thing that will work with certain users. ...and it does work! GoRight is helping to crystalize your thoughts, challenge your ideas and get you to question your own ideas and their veracity. This is why we're here! While I don't know GoRight personally, I do have a strong feeling that he is from the school of "Truth will out" and, bless him, he has the energy to make it happen consistently.

What GoRight is doing is so important for Misplaced Pages. It really pains me to see constant efforts by bitter, chastised ones to attempt to shackle him. I hope they eventually learn to embrace and appreciate what GoRight is doing, 'cause it ain't easy.

Anyway GoRight, I want you to know that I appreciate it very much and I am sure there are a great number of others who do as well.Lexlex (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words. You'll never know how appreciated they truly are. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sticking it to the man is a worthwhile pursuit, but remember that too much of a good thing can be...too much. It is best to balance one's activities and keep things in perspective. Also, the strongest criticism is based on fact and refrains from excessive rhetoric. Jehochman 14:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"remember that too much of a good thing can be...too much." - And this is a fair comment, especially of late. But these are not ordinary times as you know, and desperate times call for desperate measures or something like that. On the other hand recent events have caused me to start giving back to the community in ways I haven't up to this point so there is a silver lining amongst our current storm clouds.

"Also, the strongest criticism is based on fact and refrains from excessive rhetoric." - I fully agree and somewhat to my shame this is something I seem to have strayed from of late. I shall endeavor to do better on this front. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Documenting Standard Climate Change Arguments.

I have been thinking for some time that it would be beneficial to document the commonly raised arguments to get things into and remove things from GW articles, and especially GW BLPs. There are so many examples of people arguing both sides of a policy, myself included unfortunately, depending on which side of the GW fence the article sat on. I envision a page that somehow highlights, policy by policy, how the arguments are used in a side by side pro/con fasion. It would include a template of the core argument used in each case and then provide a set of pointer to historical examples of their use.

It seems to me that this might be a good vehicle for demonstrating the whole double standard and how it is being maintained. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you're familiar with them, it would be fantastic to have as a resource for both sides. In fact, you might consider giving them standardized numbers. That way, when something starts, rather than rebutting or going into an endless back and forth with the same, tired points, you could just say: "You're doing a number 12, please see rebuttal 22. You are checked, sir." Lexlex (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked (2)

Despite numerous warnings, lengthy detailed discussions with friendly and neutral editors, and formal sanctions, you have chosen not to abandon your apparent determination to be a drain on the volunteer resources of the community rather than an asset to the project. You have been editing in spurts since late 2007, and have amassed nearly five and a half thousand edits. You have a fine mind, a keen eye for detail, and an admirable willingness to stand against the tide. You could have chosen to be a great boon to this project. Instead, you have chosen to devote your efforts to stirring disputes in restraint of collaboration, making unreasonable demands in questionable faith on the time of your fellow volunteers, and grandstanding and tilting at windmills of minutia without evincing a serious interest in the productive creation of content. Serious discussion is one way to contribute to quality articles, but frivolously disputatious bickering is not. Your top-edited articles and talkpages include not a single page that would not serve as a forum for argument for its own sake. Spreading every sliver of contention across as many project pages as will feed the flames of drama shows an unseemly disinclination to contribute to a free high quality encyclopedia, or even let other people get on with building it. I even spent my own social capital in your defense here, but the promised reforms have not materialized.

You usually maintain at least a veneer of courtesy, but far too often you make comments that are snide, sarcastic, condescending, or similarly only superficially polite. The term civility is often hyperlinked to Misplaced Pages:Civility, but it is really not being used as a term of art with some byzantine Misplaced Pages-specific definition unrelated to the societal norm of treating people with basic respect even in the face of serious disagreement. Accusations of collusion, insinuations of bad faith negotiation, and intimidation by intimation are never civil.

There follows a sampling of problematic diffs from the preceding week. Many of these are in context of discussions where other editors are also behaving disruptively, but the behaviour of others is immaterial to this sanction. It is worth noting that your participation in a discussion rarely has the effect of calming an inflamed situation or restoring a productive focus, though it often has rather the opposite effect. Some of my comments below include reference to guidelines or essays rather than policy; this should be taken as shorthand for the points laid out at those pages, not as indication that they are being used to justify this block.

1. accusation of gross misconduct outside of a dispute resolution process
2. accusation of perfidy
3. needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion
4. sarcasm and accusation of bad faith
5. violation of WP:POINT
6. accusation of partiality and collusion
7. accusation of abuse and bad faith (diff includes edits by other editors to include the mitigating factor that you later struck part of a comment)
8. inflaming an already passionate discussion
9. unproductive sarcasm
10. uncivil insinuation
11. violation of WP:POINT and unevidenced accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter.
12. demand that other users expend their time and effort to your satisfaction
13. referring to people as "my good friend" is actually a bit annoying; this is just my personal opinion, not part of the blocking rationale, especially given your explanation here
14. incivility
15. Here you state at 01:17 on the 13th server time that you had dropped the matter of Pcarbonn's topic ban after a neutral administrator closed the discussion. Here an hour earlier is your back-handed acceptance of the clear community consensus. Here at 20:49 on the 12th, however, is another close by an uninvolved administrator, followed by, well, some of the diffs above ... then the close you acknowledged ... then another half dozen edits here. Really, choosing to insert yourself into that discussion at all given your recent block and sanction was particularly ill-advised. Other editors are capable of raising questions of due process (as, indeed, they did).
16. snide incivility
17. accusation of bad faith
18. includes: placing an unreasonable burden of evidence (very few people state that they are here to advance a personal agenda, it must be inferred from their edits); accusations of bad faith (saying AGF is not a shield to then proceed to fail to any more than stating "with all due respect" is a free pass to insult someone); and condescension.
19. accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter
20. failure to show due diligence. You could easily have contributed productively here by adding the omitted log entry yourself.

For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others, lack of basic consideration for the norms of constructive discussion, unacceptable focus on using this website as a forum for unduly burdensome and unproductive discussion at the expense of improving content, and following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight, I am blocking your access indefinitely. Thank you for your contributions.

Administrators: Please discuss this block with me before modifying or lifting it unless there is a substantial community consensus or the action is otherwise obvious or non-controversial. I prefer open review, but my email is enabled if you would prefer to discuss off site. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting array of diffs, all of which are taken completely out of context and the majority of which are involving matters already settled and abandoned or otherwise explained where they were made. Most of these are reminiscent of Raul's attack page which I actually find disappointing in you, 2/0.

I believe that my edits over the past day and a half speak for themselves in refutation to the picture you are wanting to paint here. I could address each of these points individually, and may be forced to do so in due time, but this would only feed the perceptions of wikilawyering that I assume are being bolstered here. Raising good faith concerns about things that I perceive as being injustices in a public forum which is precisely where I am expected to raise them cannot possibly be considered a blocking offense. Nor was I the only on voicing those same concerns so I fail to understand why I am being singled out in this case. JzG raised most of these issues in a timely fashion at which decidedly shows no consensus for your action, so I find the timing of this block some days later curious.

You complain that I am wasting people's time but after more than a day and a half of either nothing but silence or Recent Change Patrol on my part you call for yet more discussion of the issues, . Do you consider this block to be preventative or punitive? I mean are you actually seeking to prevent me from performing more Recent Change Patrols which is all I have done for the past day and a half? What is the imminent danger to the project in that?

In the interests of simply being able to move on expeditiously, what pound of flesh are you seeking to extract in exchange for my unblock? --GoRight (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you blaming, , this thread, , on me? I didn't start it. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I invite any reviewing administrator to look at the diffs provided above in context before passing judgment. I also wish them to take into consideration that the majority of these examples come from two threads at ] only one of which I started. Since the one that I started was closed by a neutral administrator I have essentially moved on as my contributions will demonstrate if you review my edits since that time. Indeed, for the past day and a half I either stayed away or was conducting recent change patrol which I believe is considered a useful contribution to the community. The only thing that I can see this block preventing at this point seems to be more recent change patrol activity which would seem to be a detriment to the project. I'm trying to move on but and keeps dragging me back into the whole mess. Thank you for your consideration.}}

I'll drop the unblock request which appears to have been unpersuasive in its current form, but also notably was never declined. I'll wait until 2/0 and I can have a conversation below before putting up another, if needed. --GoRight (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Jehochman's suggestion I read WP:GAB which states the following in its lead:

You, as a blocked editor, are responsible for convincing administrators:

• that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy); or:
• that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again and you will make productive contributions instead.

So with that in mind and lacking any more specifics to offer, I might as well run this up the flag pole and see if someone will salute:

{{unblock|1=I first draw the reviewing administrator's attention to the substantial discussion of this situation at and elsewhere on my talk page.<br><br>Recognizing that neutral voices such a LHVU are in some level of agreement that my behavior has been a problem of late I hereby acknowledge that it has been problematic and I apologize to the community for having misbehaved. I shall make a good faith effort to address the concerns which have been explicitly articulated in the discussions related to this block and which, to the best of my understanding, include: (a) wasting the time of other editors at AN and ANI, and (b) failing to promote a collegial atmosphere to the detriment of the project. I hereby acknowledge and affirm that I ''"have the responsibility to communicate civilly and respectfully"'' and declare that it is my sincere intent to significantly improve my behavior in this regards.<br><br>With regards to the purely procedural aspects of the block itself and the specific points laid out in ] quoted above, the block was made after a period of approximately a day and a half of being away from editing altogether and specifically while I was engaged in recent change patrol and so there was no imminent danger to the project from that activity to justify this block. Regarding whether my behavior rose to the level of disruption from a ''purely technical POV'' and so ''not to diminish in any way my freely made admissions above'', it is worth noting that the extensive discussion of my behavior on AN both before and after this block failed to demonstrate a consensus in support of this block. Evidence: 2/0 himself acknowledged a lack of consensus from before the block when he states ''"LHVU raises a valid point - there is not a consensus here for a block. ..."'') and after (you'll have to make your own assessment based on the discussion ).<br><br>For these reasons, I respectfully request that the block be undone.}}

I'll drop the unblock request which appears, again, to have been unpersuasive in its current form, but also notably was, again, never declined.

I owe 2/0 a thoughtful response to his queries here. In thinking about how to put his questions into a proper perspective it has occurred to me that there is an opportunity here to use my current situation as a proxy for the larger debate over the NPOV problems with the climate change articles. I wish to take some time to properly prepare such an analysis and to present it in a concise and cogent form so as to take my current plight and turn it into something positive for the community on a broader scale than just myself.

The discussion at AN and indeed 2/0's block of myself represent a focus on what the best band-aid to apply should be to cover up the most current symptom. I prefer, on the other hand, to shift the focus back to where it should be and that is finding a cure for the current ills on these pages which obviously encompasses far more than just little ol' me. If that means that I must stay blocked for a while longer then the sacrifice is more than worth it to have an opportunity to shed some much needed light on a poorly understood problem.

Unfortunately real world constraints dictate that I shall not be able to prepare such a proper response until some time next week. I do not object to remaining blocked in the interim.

The community is obviously free to do as it wishes, but I would recommend that the current AN threads be closed as inconclusive with no consensus so as to avoid and further widespread wasting of community time which is one of the primary complaints on the table. I am safely blocked so there is no danger to the project by doing so. In the short term I would prefer to work with 2/0 and LHVU here on my talk page to first put the issues into a full and proper perspective (i.e. the response I need to provide some time next week), and then to move on to the identification of whatever community safeguards are deemed necessary, if any. Would this be acceptable to 2/0 and LHVU? --GoRight (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to continue working with you here to try to hash out a set of restrictions that would not lead to another block on the same issues. I will check back here daily for your updates, but do please feel free to request that someone drop me a line on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me see if I can get it right this time.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression (I reserve, however, the right to appeal any block made as a result of this pledge that exceeds 1 week). |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression (I reserve, however, the right to appeal any block made as a result of this pledge that exceeds 1 week). |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression (I reserve, however, the right to appeal any block made as a result of this pledge that exceeds 1 week). |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

A dialogue with 2/0

It appears that the discussion that precipitated your block had no consensus to support your action, and it also appears that the discussion following your block is headed in rather the same direction (i.e. no consensus). But given that neutral voices that I respect such as LHVU are agreeing that there is some sort of problem here I am more than willing to try and work out an amicable arrangement. Once I clearly commit to something I do follow through. I have honored my current restriction with respect to a certain BLP and I have not even sought to have it overturned.

I am here for a purpose and that purpose is completely in line with core wikipedia policy, namely promoting NPOV on the GW pages. If my personal behavior is somehow getting in the way of my getting the truth out on those important issues then I whole heartedly want to change that behavior so that my message becomes even clearer.

So, the first order of business here is to decide whether this block is about suppressing my POV or merely correcting my behavior in some way. You seem to be of the opinion that the concern is the latter. So, assuming that we can come to some agreement that would resolve what you see as the behavioral problems presumably there would be no need for a topic ban from my participation in GW articles, agreed? This should be uncontroversial if your true goal is merely to resolve the behavior and not suppress my POV. What say you on this point? --GoRight (talk) 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please let me assure you that I did not undertake this action lightly. I spent several hours reviewing all of your recent contributions instead of merely relying on the ones that I saw in the course of trying to oversee the climate change disputes. As a long term contributor and, more importantly, a fellow human being, you deserve no less. I also meant what I wrote at the top of the blocking statement - the ability simultaneously to keep track of daily minutia and the larger process is something I prize in my colleagues. Even aside from systematic bias, a tendency towards groupthink is dangerous to the long term viability of this project, and I respect any editor willing to take a stand.

You were not blocked for any of that.

The discussions at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/GoRight on Pcarbonn did not precipitate my decision that some action was needed, though they did rather pull the pendulum away from the polite but firm warning end of the spectrum of potential responses to your behaviour.

You were blocked for acting to the detriment of further improvement of the encyclopedia; I think you honestly disagree with that assessment, but that very lack of self-awareness (or feigned lack, but if I believed that then I would not believe you worth the effort of trying to get through to you) is part of the problem.

Your response to this diff, currently link 20 above, particularly demonstrates just how fully I have failed to convey to you how your approach to editing is not in the interests of the project. The notification had been placed appropriately, as you could easily have verified. Had you so chosen, you might have benefited the project (admittedly at a few levels removed from actual article editing, but a benefit nonetheless) by correcting another editor's oversight in failing to enter the notification in the log. Had you so chosen, you might have verified that fair notice was given both by the talkpage template and by the editnotice on the article in question, and moved on satisfied that due diligence had been exercised. Had you so chosen, you might even have followed the discussion of the point you raised there, and so have been privy to this pertinent publicly available information before posting your response in the table below. You chose instead to misuse the GS/CC venue as yet another forum in which to indulge your taste for sarcasm and sniping at your fellow volunteers. This is the problem. This is the editing pattern that continually reoccurs, but is detrimental to the project.

I am sorry if you disagree with or dislike my assessment that you must enjoy sarcasm and sniping. It was formed in the course of reading really rather a lot of your statements in various contexts. If you would like new editors to form a different opinion of you, just stop. That is all it takes. I have yet to find the grocer who will accept points scored on strangers on the internet as valid legal tender.

Insults and acerbic comments directed at your fellow volunteers, no matter how veiled in a shield of indirect insinuation instead of brazen violation of the NPA policy, are detrimental to the project. They deprive us of the good editors who would prefer to spend their time more pleasantly; they set up the hackles of the good editors who stay, provoking dominance games and response in kind; they select for people who find endless argument more rewarding than building an encyclopedia through collaborative discussion. Other editors are, of course, responsible for their own actions and should moderate their own responses, but so are you responsible for understanding what your words will actually communicate, and matching that to your intention. You have the capacity to view your comments through fresh eyes without benefit of knowing your present state of mind. You have the capacity to perceive how your comments will likely be received by someone following multiple contemporaneous discussions. You have the responsibility to communicate civilly and respectfully.

To take another example, the above paragraphs do not contain the phrase agree with me or else, but the implication is clear. Your political positions have absolutely no impact on my life, and are not at issue. Given what I understand of the history of the climate change dispute I can understand why this would be on your mind, but focusing on other editors at a time when introspection is needed is unlikely to be productive.

LessHeard vanU makes an interesting proposal below, but I believe that the amount of monitoring that would be required makes it untenable. Every time you were to make an edit expressing dissatisfaction with a consensus, every editor aware of the post and the sanction would need to make a function call against your agreement. For myself, I have no intention of investing in the daily monitoring that such a sanction would entail - even in the case where everybody agrees that you have abode by both the letter and the spirit of your agreement.

Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 10:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to distill your observations into a cogent expression of a specific editing behavior that you feel needs to be addressed. This is something that we can work with and I am perfectly willing to work on specific issues once they have been clearly distilled and articulated. If I were to distill your comment just a bit further, would it be fair to summarize this specific behavioral issue as being:

GoRight has a tendency to engage in what is commonly referred to as "sniping" and/or the use of "sarcasm" and this is detrimental to the project due to the potential dampening effect it has on the project's ability to attract new editors.

If this is an accurate summarization of your concern then I will offer up a suggestion for a voluntary editing restriction that I feel will address this concern in a way that addresses the community interests while preserving my interests for being here and we can then iterate that, as needed, until we either reach irreconcilable differences (which I think is unlikely) or you are satisfied that those restrictions are sufficient to address your concern. If this is inaccurate or incomplete in some way please update it accordingly.

Before I offer a proposal, however, I would like to make certain that we have all of the issues on the table. Are there other specific behaviors that you feel need to be addressed before you would be willing to lift the block you have imposed? --GoRight (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the following:

"Your response to this diff, currently link 20 above, particularly demonstrates just how fully I have failed to convey to you how your approach to editing is not in the interests of the project. The notification had been placed appropriately, as you could easily have verified. Had you so chosen, you might have benefited the project (admittedly at a few levels removed from actual article editing, but a benefit nonetheless) by correcting another editor's oversight in failing to enter the notification in the log."

By way of explanation, not excuse, I honestly did not take the time to look beyond the log. Between TS and ChrisO that log is regularly reviewed and updated so I had no reason to believe that it was not up to date. That being said, and given the points you have raised, I can accept in good faith that you would (or could) see this oversight on my part as being somehow pointy and uncooperative. So, for that I apologize.

On the other hand in regards to this particular diff, would it not also be fair to say that I am regularly accused of having a WP:BATTLE attitude or filing frivolous and vexatious requests and so after four similar requests in quick succession on the part of this editor is it really unfair of me to ask that a similar warning or restraint be put in place in this case? I honestly don't see that as a bad faith thing to ask. Perhaps YMMV and therein lies part of our disagreement? --GoRight (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to a comment in the hidden archive - wholesale rewriting articles against consensus was intended as an example of something you have not done to my knowledge; the succeeding sentence has a however, but is a bit clause-heavy so no worries regardless. I am not sure how familiar Gwen Gale is with your editing, so I wanted to include some pertinent background when seeking her advice.

I honestly did not take the time to look beyond the log - this, in itself, is not a problem; even this small corner of the encyclopedia is enormous, and it would be silly to fail to take advantage of the principle that many hands make light work. The problematic tendency illustrated by this edit is that you instead took the time to, ironically, further polarize the disputants. The point of the sanctions is to encourage people to work collaboratively, not draw up regiments spitting venom at each other competing to see who can slip a toe furthest across the line before being called to task. Suggesting that another user take advantage of the convenient template designed to regularize presentation for the ease of explaining an issue to the uninvolved is similarly not in itself unproductive. In fact, I would even go so far as to commend such a call iff the relevant information had not been presented clearly, concisely, and completely. Asking someone else to waste their time is rude.

I am not sure that I have ever seen a civility parole work. There is something of a selection bias here, though, as the topic is only raised in the breach. If you or someone else watching this might point me in the direction of advice where such a thing has been tried before, I will at least take it under consideration. Likewise, any restriction against "wikilawyering" is going to be open to interpretation and lead to further frustration for all involved. A restriction from involving yourself in disputes to which you are not an originating party would seem at first blush to be more straightforward, but I am not at all convinced that that would be the case in practice. Any solution based on respecting consensus is similarly problematic. I considered these and similar potential less restrictive solutions before blocking you. I also considered restricting you from articles and talkpages covered by the climate change probation (with articles tagged after your edits being handled on a case-by-case basis; subject to review in six months), but given the breadth of concerns with your editing, that just seemed selfish.

Could you explain to me how this comment could be part of seeking an amicable resolution? Alternatively, could you explain how you think the comment was received, and expand on what bearing that understanding might have on your future interactions? - 2/0 (cont.) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am holding up a mirror here to illustrate a point: Could you explain to me how could be part of seeking an amicable resolution? Alternatively, could you explain how you think the fact that I am indefinitely blocked and being asked these questions when not even a mention was made to the author of this edit is being received, and expand on what bearing that understanding might have on your future actions?

My purpose in making the edit you query me about above is analogous to my purpose in similarly holding a mirror up to your questions: to get you to think about how your actions can be viewed and received. It also has the side benefit of making a point about selective enforcement and how it is perceived. --GoRight (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I would be interested in hearing your reaction to this post, but more importantly this response. Was this response in line with reaching an amicable resolution to the original poster's concerns? How do you feel that this response will have been received? And since we are on this subject, perhaps you could consider the potential enabling effects of this and this. Is the enabling of clearly provocative editing in line with the goals of the climate change probation which, as you state above, are "to encourage people to work collaboratively"? Can you please expand on what bearing any of this will have on your future enforcement actions? --GoRight (talk) 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests for 01/22/2010

Since you seem to want to interact on a daily timescale it probably makes sense for me to prepare a list of points I would like to draw your attention to each day. So with that in mind, could you please address the following points:

1. Could you please consider my request for a tightly controlled unblock found here.
2. Could you please review the discussion of possible editing restrictions with LHVU here and provide any thoughts that comes out of those.
3. To streamline our interactions here and to resolve our disagreement as efficiently as possible, could you please provide a reasonably detailed enumeration of constraints that any proposal must address before you would consider lifting your block? If there are no conditions under which you would consider lifting your block can you please indicate that explicitly.
4. Alternatively you might consider simply unblocking me at this point so as not to drag out this drama any longer and neither of us really wants to go to Arbcom over this, administer a severe double or even triple trout slapping, and send me on my way with a stern warning that I can expect more of the same unless I make a visible effort to improve.

Thank you for your time and attention to these points. --GoRight (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While I am prevented from performing recent change patrol ...

I guess I might as well put these diffs into some sort of context.

A summary of the opinions expressed at :

Comments from the peanut gallery

More comments from the peanut gallery

OK, I see that there is additional discussion at the AN thread. With respect to JP's query about TS's claim that my resurrecting closed cases is a waste of time, let me point out that Enric Naval and others have repeatedly made the point that anyone is free to challenge any user's block or ban. They make the argument in regards to Jed Rothwell as a means to trying to counter my claim that he is not banned because his block has not been appealed. Now they wish to have it the other way that users are NOT free to challenge another user's block or ban. They want it both ways. In the case of Rothwell I chose not to take up his cause. In the case of Pcarbonn I chose the opposite. But by their own argument and the arguments set forth on the policy discussions that ensued because of that the argument was consistently made that anyone can challenge someone's block or ban. Now this is being used against me? It's not right. --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to JzG at AN: Re: and Misplaced Pages:BASC. Funny he should mention that. I already have the email drafted. I was going to sit on it until tomorrow to give 2/0 a chance to come to his senses and actually step up to engage in the dialogue, but I can send it now if he prefers. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to send it now since this has come up. It's on its way. --GoRight (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, JzG, you have actually been making some reasonable comments and suggestions in this debate thus far, aside from trying to get me banned outright, of course.  :) Perhaps you and I could try to discuss the underlying problems and see where that goes? I suspect that just the two of us could make considerable more progress one on one than the whole gaggle at AN are doing. This should properly be 2/0's task as the blocking administrator but he seems to be either unable or unwilling to make a go of it. You seemed relatively happy with my earlier proposal about limiting my text at AN and ANI, perhaps we can start with that?

Do you think that the primary problem is my activity at the noticeboards, or is it broader than that? Is it just wikilawyering type issues or collaboration issues like 2/0 articluated? If we can identify the form of the issue we can craft a suitable remedy. Without that we are just shooting randomly and may likely shot ourselves in the feet as a result. --GoRight (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment for EN: Re: . You are asking the question is a biased manner, IMHO. The correct phrasing would be, are straw polls conducted on AN as part of a ban discussion considered polls under his restriction? Obviously the discussion itself is not a poll, but that discussion can certainly contain a straw poll that IS a poll. --GoRight (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it

They are now spouting conspiracy theories -- see this. I suggest you disengage and just go away for a while, until the mob finds a new target. You can work on evidence, perhaps - scour the skeptic BLPs and find examples of abuses. This will not be resolved by middle management, it has to go all the way. ATren (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh the paranoia. I was asked a question on my talk page, I gave a direct response. It is very clear that they are voting on whether the community supports 2/0's block, or not. How did I even get accused starting this when I was blocked? Being blocked seems to provide a pretty good alibi against such charges I would think. --GoRight (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Man, looking over Abd's comment and the discussion on his talk page, what the heck could Arbcom have meant by "he is allowed to vote and comment at polls" if NOT something like this? How much more can something be considered a poll than an explicit poll? --GoRight (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Except of course that the AN discussion is neither a poll nor a vote, despite the format that it is currently taking. So Arbcom's restrictions are in effect. 2/0 asked for a discussion of your block, not a vote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Be careful KDP, wikilawyering like this can get you in trouble. It is obviously a vote regardless of what it was called at the outset. --GoRight (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not a vote and the people who interpret it as such are simply wrong. Like AfD, it's a discussion. Comments with just "support" or "oppose" are of no value and will be ignored, comments which discuss the issues and policies are all that matters. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are wrong. . --GoRight Regardless of what you call it this all amounts to the same thing, the community expressing their opinion. Why would the support and oppose opinions be ignored, exactly? (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

--You rang? This isn't a poll, for sure, here, but I'm obviously a party, since it is about me or my ban. For myself, I'm collecting examples of really good wikilawyering, and I'm like a kid in a candy shop lately. This is GoRight's Talk page, and I'm sure he'll consent to this being here, but, if not, he is completely free to remove it, and I apologize in advance. It's longer than I like, but the topic is sooo fascinating, what editors will do when they are attached.

"The AN discussion is neither a poll nor a vote, despite the format that it was taking." I.e, the format of a poll. It looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, and all the baby ducks lined up after an explicit support, called by the editor a !vote, highlighted in bold, but, of course it is actually a mere discussion because JzG and KDP and others say so in order to create a phony violation of my sanctions, and even though I'm also obviously a major figure in the dispute, as they keep mentioning me (which would make my participation allowed, in fact, as to the apparent intention of the sanction). Perfect. It will be prominent in the collection, which may remain private or not, depending on how much I'm offered for it.

As to the baby ducks (which is no criticism of any of them, I'm simply saying that they were !voting), we saw , until TS finally questions it.

But the conga line continued: Moi.

Finally TS complains again, since so many editors ignored his first protest. But it was too subtle. So:

, and then TenOfAllTrades chimes in to ask about voting as well, referring to flash mob. Fascinating. I've never seen him complain about flash mobs when his friends piled in to a discussion to create an impression of no-consensus. JzG is actually correct, decisions should not be based on preponderance of votes, but on evidence and arguments. Problem is, there are obviously administrators willing to make decisions without evidence and evidence-based argument, and for them, it can take a significant number of editors objecting to cause them to shy away from doing this, otherwise they close as a snow without ever showing that they personally investigated the evidence and arguments.

Shortly after I posted my comment, Future Perfect removed it. It was restored by Atren, TS commented on it, and then it was removed again by Future Perfect, who claimed he was enforcing the ArbComm sanction, which explicitly allows me to !vote in polls, and I'm fascinated by JzG's argument above, I'll get to it. Normally, when a non-banned editor has replied to a banned editor's comment, the latter isn't removed; it might be struck through. Enric Naval has done that many times. Not here. Out! Damned Spot! (But TS then removed his own comment, I'm just pointing out that there is no policy that banned editor comments must be removed, and revert warring to do it would definitely be beyond the pale.)

But, after all this, another editor added a !vote. . I can imagine an editor realizing that this wasn't as clear as it was being claimed, something had to be done. I can imagine the light bulb going off. "I know! If we remove the appearance of a poll, we can nail Abd's ass to the wall, for failing to Mind His Own Business. No bolding, no poll." As if.

Or perhaps because TS was simply frustrated that the community wasn't saluting his "not a vote" comments. In any case, he removed all the bolding from everyone's comment, with the edit summary: Isn't a vote so making it look like one isn't a good idea. So this wins the first place wikilawyering prize; altering text style in many editor's edits to in an attempt to alter the substance of a discussion. Wikilawyering must have some purpose; here it would be to create a claim that, again, I'd violated my sanction, because that is the only reason a fuss would be made over whether it was polling or not, it was otherwise completely moot. (But if TS has done this before and been sustained, when there was no ban issue, I'd apologize.) Is there any admin who would think that a decision on a block confirmation should be made by preponderance of !votes? However, if TS agrees that it looked like a "vote" -- or poll, !vote means not-vote, and it refers to comments in polls on Misplaced Pages -- then surely he will support the claim that I did not deliberately violate the sanction, but was sucked in by appearances, the same appearances that "fooled" so many editors. Alternatively, of course, it actually was a poll. Not a "vote." The poll was started by LHVU with the first explicit !vote, and, obviously, others followed that.

Now, JzG's argument. No, it's not a vote and the people who interpret it as such are simply wrong. Like AfD, it's a discussion. Comments with just "support" or "oppose" are of no value and will be ignored, comments which discuss the issues and policies are all that matters. It's beautiful, JzG wins the classic JzG prize for irrelevant arguments that can sometimes carry the day if he presents five or six of them at once, there is nobody who does this better than he. Nobody claimed that it was a vote, nobody "interpreted it" as such, and there were no !votes with only "support" or "oppose," bare.

But AfDs are polls, that's obvious, and that was confirmed at arbitration enforcement when the same clique tried to get me dinged for sanction violation when I !voted in an AfD. So JzG's argument that the AN discussion was like AfD supports my own conclusion on that. Thanks, JzG, I truly appreciate it. And, then, as to the core of this, GoRight's objection to the Pcarbonn ban was that the "discussion" was singularly devoid of evidence and policy-based arguments, only mudslinging by ... JzG et al. Did JzG disclose in that discussion, which he filed, that he was heavily involved in long-term content dispute with Pcarbonn? He clearly had an axe to grind, and it has previously been suggested to him that he should stay away from, ahem, the Topic Not to be Mentioned, and away from me? Good advice, both. I'm certainly not following him around! --Abd (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question for LHVU

A question for LHVU because I respect his opinion and do not wish to falsely use his statements. Could you please clarify, LHVU, whether or not you had intended for a confirmation poll (!vote) to ensue when you made the following comment:

"Since 2/0 has given their rationale, then it beholds us to support or otherwise (and quickly!) so that it might not be overturned on a technicality."

used the following edit summary:

"GoRight Blocked: response, and !vote support to legitimise action"

and then included what for all intents and purposes appears to be a !vote below your comment thusly:

"Support pending GoRight agreeing to a restriction that addresses the concerns raised regarding tendacious opposition and commentary where there is an existing consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)"

Sorry to put you in the middle, but please just tell us what you had intended either way. --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please convey this link, , to LHVU's talk page to alert him to my question? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

2/0 has done it mate. mark nutley (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are asking whether I was questioning the legitimacy of the block and then moved swiftly to try to ensure the legitimacy, you are correct. I considered the block did not have existing consensus per the prior discussion, nor had you edited in such a fashion since the discussion to give cause to the block, and neither had 2/0 declared they had invoked WP:IAR for their actions. Under the circumstances a sysop would have been correct to have reversed the block. I considered doing so, but did not because I believed that the action itself - and the possibility of a wheel war ensuing - would have distracted from the ongoing discussion on how (and whether) your continuing editing should be accommodated. That consideration also denotes why I then supported the block, on the understanding that indefinite was a period determined by a consensus being arrived at on that question. In short, I considered reverting the block on a technicality was the worse option so I moved to ensure the it required consensus to be undone.
I shall be plain, the community - or that of it who is prepared to participate in the discussion - are split into three camps; those who would have you blocked/banned from editing (totally or from GW related articles), those who would allow you to edit under restrictions, and those who wish you to be able to edit as before. If the achievable options are to edit under restrictions, or not edit at all (which is currently the situation), then I feel there is a sufficient majority to allow that - providing those who would prefer an unfettered editor will back it. The question is what sanctions will be agreeable to a sufficient percentage to provide the consensus for an unblock. I think that you have the opportunity to suggest something that will draw sufficient support from that editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, LHVU. I appreciate you taking the time to prepare this statement. I tend to agree with your assessment of the three camps involved, and I respect your principled decision to act in the best interests of the project as you saw it. The two polarized camps, i.e. those calling for a ban of some sort and those calling for no restrictions, are each themselves "biased" in the sense that they are involved in the underlying content discussions that are driving these conflicts. As such they are likely to remain polarized for the foreseeable future, although we should admittedly all work towards reducing that polarization. Therefore, it is the third group who is generally neutral and uninvolved that I am most concerned about since they, obviously, hold the key to my future participation here.

As a result it is they whom I take most seriously in these deliberations and clearly your own voice indicates that this group agrees that I have crossed some line in my behavior, and so it is in my own best interests to take that statement seriously and to respond to it in some appropriate manner. Towards that end I am engaging in a dialogue with 2/0 to tease out his specific issues for having issued this block the first place in the sincere hope that we can come to some agreement and he will voluntarily lift his own block without the need to try and over-ride it through a community consensus. Doing so would seem to be the least disruptive course forward at this point. Let us see how that discussion proceeds before asking the community to even consider the issue further. --GoRight (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You have had some little time to think these things over, and I wonder if you have given some thought to my proposed resolution? The discussion at WP:AN has largely broken down into an argument over the use of sanction to deter or diminish various points of view, and not on your specific situation. I have been thinking a little over my rough proposal, and think I can clarify it into a phrase that I might use as a basis of an essay - Dissenting opinion. In legal terms (I am also writing to the gallery, you understand) a dissenting opinion is that of a judge whose determination is at odds to the majority - a placing of their understanding and arguments in the case that is decided otherwise. It is of itself a valuable resource in determining future cases, in that the arguments presented are available for reference. What my proposal then boils down to, is that where there is an established consensus (the majority verdict) then you are permitted to provide a dissenting opinion on the talkpage where you lay out what you feel is the appropriate viewpoint. Further discussions regarding the existing consensus may then refer to your input. As noted previously, and like a legal dissenting opinion, it is a "one off" statement rather than the basis of an ongoing debate. Do you think that you would be interested in limiting your contributions in the Global Warming related areas, where the consensus is not yours, to such a statement? Obviously issues such as non-archiving need resolving, but can it be a basis under which you may return to editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have trouble with the precedent your proposal would set. Censoring minority view points is not something that should be taken lightly. With regard to content in these contentious spaces, it seems easy to say that consensus hasn't been reached, much more difficult to say when it has. Whose to judge when an issue is "closed"? There are plenty of rules governing conduct in debating content. If he runs afoul of those, he should be subject to sanctions like anybody else. But a preemptive restriction doesn't seem workable to me.

With respect to the other major issue in play, participation in AN/ANI discussions, I think your proposal has a lot of merit and is much more practically implemented. Issuing a "dissenting opinion", without reopening a closed case, would allow GR to continue to contribute in a role that seems to be appreciated by many in the community, without creating an undue burden on the admins. JPatterson (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly willing to try and identify a suitable safeguard for the community's interests if this is the only avenue to allow my continued participation on the GW pages. I appreciate the spirit of LHVU's proposal in that it respects the need to allow the minority to continue to have a voice, however I feel that this proposal raises some serious concerns.

It would put minority voices at a serious disadvantage (in terms of precedent) with respect majority ones. I would object to any proposal that seriously hampers the expression of minority views, especially on talk pages. Doing so turns minorities into second class citizens here on the project and that is fundamentally flawed. Even though we may hold minority views we should not be turned into unequal participants in the discussion.

To use an analogy, I object to being asked to give up my seat at the editorial table based solely on the "color" of my views. (This analogy is made for emphasis and is not intended to reflect on LHVU in any way.) JP is correct to take the longer-term view of the impact this would have in terms of precedent. I also share JP's concerns over the subjective nature of determining which things actually have consensus and which do not. Making such a determination appears to be horribly controversial as evidenced by the frequent edit wars on these pages where both sides dispute either the existence of the lack of a consensus.

I also object to limitations on the expression of minority views based on the spirit of WP:CCC. Without continued and prolonged debate it seems unlikely that WP:CCC would ever happen in practice. I think the real question here is, what specifically am I doing on article and talk pages that is actually of a concern here? If the manner in which I am expressing my opinion is objectionable, then fine we can work on identifying more acceptable ways for me to do so but limits on how often I am allowed to express those opinions would be a problem in my opinion. The majority already enjoys a huge advantage in this respect owing to their greater numbers overall, so putting limits on the minority voices only increases that inherent advantage and unfairly works against the minority perspective.

A real world analogy might be a rule that says civil rights advocacy groups are only allowed to speak up publicly in the month of February, for instance. Obviously this would be a problem. (Again, this analogy is not meant to reflect on LHVU in any way.) --GoRight (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These are good points, and deserve a considered response. I will gather my thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject... your comments seem premised on the idea that minoritarian views are under-represented on Misplaced Pages. I have not found this to be the case. On a wide range of topics, minoritarian views seem to be represented on Misplaced Pages well in excess of their representation among experts in any given field, and (more importantly) well in excess of their representation in other serious, respectable reference works. This is true both in the volume of editors who promote a minoritarian agenda, and in the amount of article coverage devoted to such agendas. Whether it's AIDS denialism, vaccine injury, secondhand smoke, megavitamin therapy, the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, or climate science, views that are relegated to a tiny fringe of the relevant knowledgable community (or rejected entirely by them) are consistently given extensive voice on Misplaced Pages.

This is a problem from at least two perspectives. First, the excessive weight given to minoritarian views hampers this project's progress toward its goal - which, incidentally, is to be a serious and respectable reference work, not to be a Utopian egalitarian community where all views are equally valid. Second, it provokes a reflex reaction against the promoters of minoritarian views, and the pendulum sometimes swings too far in the direction of discrediting or debunking them. The answer to this is not to empower a larger number of minoritarian agenda accounts, since they are actually a fundamental cause of the problem. In every instance I can think of, balanced coverage has thrived with the removal of dedicated agenda accounts, because it has opened up breathing room for editors with less of a partisan axe to grind and more of an interest in balanced, encyclopedic coverage. Not that I see anything at all offensive about you comparing yourself to Rosa Parks... just food for thought. MastCell  20:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Not that I see anything at all offensive about you comparing yourself to Rosa Parks... just food for thought." - Please forgive my overly sensitive nature under the current circumstances, but is this bit intended as a serious statement to be taken literally, or as snark intended to suggest that I had crossed a line? I mean no disrespect to Rosa Parks by the analogy either nor do I contend that the weight of the issues are comparable across the analogy. I know that I am no Rosa Parks in that regard.

Regarding the substance of your comment, I might point out that your assessment of NPOV is inherently from the majority POV as you tend to fall into that category on most things that I am aware of ... but I admit that I am not an expert on the minutia of your editing habits. Within the context the of Rosa Parks analogy at the time it had unfolded there were actual laws on the books supporting the position of the bus driver to ask her to give up her seat. That did not make them right. This is no different than the existing policies and precedents used by the majority here on Misplaced Pages to suppress minority views. You are arguing that the articles conform to the existing policies and precedents. With regards to NPOV I would actually disagree with you within the climate change area, but more importantly there is no reason to believe that the existing precedents regarding the application of policy are currently "right" any more than the existing laws supporting the bus driver were right at the time of Rosa Parks' arrest.

Stated another way, in the real world the minorities typically get to decide when they are being discriminated against, not the majority. I see no reason that wikipedia should be any different. Do you? --GoRight (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I was being snarky about Rosa Parks. Yes, I found it a bit offensive to compare your situation to hers, although to be fair I should have kept that to myself. I've struck it.

About my "majority POV", it is probably true that my view on most subjects I edit aligns with the view of the majority of knowledgeable opinion in that field. But there is a bit of self-selection there. Of course, I don't hold a "majority POV" on every topic, but on topics where I deeply believe the "majority POV" to be incorrect, I typically seek venues other than Misplaced Pages to advance my belief. There are topics on Misplaced Pages that I feel very strongly about where I just don't edit - at all - because I can't really kid myself that I could be neutral or "encyclopedic" about them.

I believe in civil disobedience as a strategy for dealing with injustice in real life, but it strains my sense of perspective to apply it here. In the end, this is just a website. If I really didn't like how it was run, I'd leave. If I feel like righting an injustice or a great wrong, then I wouldn't start with the picayune inequities at this website - I can't open the door or walk through the front doors of my workplace without seeing injustices a thousand times more compelling than anything that happens on Misplaced Pages. I try to harness my righteous indignation for things that really matter, from my perspective. And anyway, every morally sound and tactically successful practitioner of civil disobedience has understood that when you violate a law you consider unjust, then you accept the punishment. If Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King, Jr. were here protesting NPOV, they wouldn't be posting unblock templates and working the angles - you know what I'm saying?

Regarding your last point, again, I think the key phrase is "In the real world..." In the real world, most of us share the value of a just, fair society, and the protection of the rights of minority groups is a key part of creating that sort of society. But Misplaced Pages is not The Real World. This is just an online project aimed at producing a respectable reference work. We don't go out of our way to trample minoritarian viewpoints, but at the same time, the creation of a Utopian, individualistic society with guaranteed rights and protections isn't really the goal here. Your argument makes sense only if you view this site as a microcosm of the Real World, and I don't. A lot of people do, though, so I suspect your comparison may resonate. Just not with me. MastCell  04:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"I was being snarky about Rosa Parks." - I actually thought it plain enough that this was the case. But it would be wrong of me to have assumed bad faith and replied in kind with my own sarcasm. See, I am learning my lesson. 2/0 is teaching me well, no? But I still question why 2/0 would, as I believe is also plain from his questioning of me above, have chosen to overlook your transgression and instead focused on mine? Your snark would have been judged OK, whereas my snark would have been ridiculed and blown out of all proportion.

I note that you seek to belittle and even malign my choice of venue to practice my own form of civil disobedience, or was this not your intent (note to self: must not assume bad faith)? You seem to feel that this place is unworthy of my righteous indignation. But if that is so why do you toil here at all? There are certainly much more worthy uses of your time, no? Avail yourself of them.

You speak of the values of the Real World Society in glowing terms and yet seem willing to discard them here. This makes me wonder, for what purpose do you do so? Are those values not a worthy goal in and of themselves even in a place like this?

Sadly, MastCell, I do not share you view on such things. I see Misplaced Pages as having actual value in the real world. I see it being used as a resource by a myriad of people who put their trust in what we do here, and as such I view this project as having a societal influence even in the real world. And so yes, I do choose to vent my righteous indignation here. I do believe in playing more than lip service to the values at the foundation of the project precisely because it is those values which make this project worthy of the trust people put into the results. You correctly state that the project aspires to be a credible resource, well, how credible will it be if people cannot justifiably put their trust into it?

You also seem to seek to belittle me as a person by pointing out that Rosa Parks and MLK would willingly accept their punishment whereas I am putting up unblock requests which proves my unworthiness, or again was this not your intent? While I have no doubt that both Rosa Parks and MLK would have availed themselves of any venues for appeals rather than simply rot in jail, on the off chance that this was your intent, which seems plain to me, I will gladly repeat that I do not claim to be the moral equivalent of a Rosa Parks or a MLK because of my plight here. Such a comparison or even a suggestion of it is absurd on its face, so again one has to wonder what is your purpose in even raising it at all if not to belittle me as a person?

I would now ask 2/0 to render his psychoanalysis of this response so as to demonstrate how MastCell was playing the role of good wikiepdian and I was playing the role of villian. Please enlighten me so that I might learn my next lesson here. Please show me how my speaking these truths is wrong and how railing against these and similar attitudes is actually a detriment to the project. --GoRight (talk) 06:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I honestly mean nothing personal here, MastCell, you are merely the sounding board with which I am able to illustrate my larger point.

But its not just a question of fairness, although fairness is important in creating an non-hostile editing environment. It is also a question of credibility, a pretty important consideration for an encyclopedia one would think. In the US a plurality of adults self-identify as conservative and among this group WP is fast gaining a reputation for liberal bias. Whether this is right or wrong, it can not be a good thing for the project. If our articles are instantly discounted by the right the way Fox News is ignored by the left everybody loses, even those who see WP as a means of swaying public opinion. You can not sway those who write you off from the git go. If nothing else, having users willing to go against the grain forces editors to double check their objectivity and defend their positions. This is valuable to the project even if nary a word from the conrarians makes it into the article. JPatterson (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MastCell makes some excellent points but fails to draw any distinction between talk pages and article pages. His argument against WP:FRINGE in content is not convincing as to why debate should be limited in any way in the discussions about the content, which as I understand it, is what LHvU's proposal entails. JPatterson (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss Option 1

I don't want to end on a negative note and without offering something more to the discussion, so I'll ask LHVU what he thinks of a proposal like the one I made above:

I agree not to belabor discussions related to community sanctions at AN and ANI specifically, narrowly construed, and will self-limit my participation at any such discussions to a single paragraph expressing my view on the subject at hand. If I wish to comment further I shall confine any such discussion to my user space where other editors are allowed to make reference to it, or not, as they see fit on their own accords. I do expect, however, to be allowed to also include a simple "Support" or "Oppose" (or their logical equivalents depending on the wording involved) in any !votes that occur related to such sanctions and these shall not be considered violations of my one paragraph offer.

Is this even in the ballpark? Could it be with some modifications or expansions of scope? This is just an idea for discussion at this point to get a feel for what your main concerns are, or rather what you feel the community's main concerns are.

I guess I should also note that we will eventually need to discuss the issue of duration of any such restriction. I will not willingly accept any restriction that does not have a suitable time expiration attached to it. I take this position for the following reasons: (a) once I have proven that I can act responsibly in the community's eyes I should eventually be let off the hook without much fanfare or fuss, and (b) traditionally Arbcom does not impose indefinite restrictions so if I am asked to accept an indefinite restriction here I might as well take the matter to Arbcom. Your thoughts on this aspect of things? --GoRight (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

... I just closed the wrong window and lost many minutes of considered comment. Damn.
Short version - the responses above to my proposal are orientated toward a viewpoint that I am attempting to limit expression of minority viewpoints. This is incorrect, I am attempting to agree a form of restriction on GoRights alleged historical manner of interacting to allow them the opportunity to continue presenting a viewpoint.
GoRights alternative proposal does not address the issues of interaction within article talkspace, and for that reason I believe will not be acceptable to a majority of reviewers. The issues that arise in Misplaced Pages space derive, I believe, from a view that article talkspace becomes the focus of problems rather than the place to resolve them. That is the point that requires addressing if progress to a return to editing is to be made.
As part of a reasonable discussion, length of restrictions or conditions on how they might be alleviated are matters to be agreed upon - although in my book indefinite is never forever, simply "as long as it takes" (but I realise the inertia that may exist once indefinite is applied). If any terms are unacceptable to any one party then there will be no progress, except for an imposition of one by a body such as ArbCom. All parties will need to bear in mind how best their interests are served by resort to such a process, and whether more effort should be made in finding a solution first. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Short version - the responses above to my proposal are orientated toward a viewpoint that I am attempting to limit expression of minority viewpoints." - No, this was not my point. I explicitly acknowledge that you are seeking to protect the expression of minority viewpoints. The point being made is that your proposal, if enacted, would set a precedent on how to handle "uppity" minorities such as myself and it is that precedent which would serve to limit minority expression. The effect is predictable and that is all I meant. I am pointing out a potentially unintended consequence of your proposal.

"GoRights alternative proposal does not address the issues of interaction within article talkspace, and for that reason I believe will not be acceptable to a majority of reviewers." - OK, so as I said above if scope is a problem would changing the scope help? In this case extending the restriction beyond just AN and ANI into article talk space? (Not saying I would agree to this, just brainstorming to feel you out) Would the proposal then be satisfactory? What is the minimum amount of scope expansion that would be required to make it acceptable? (Obviously I seek to minimize the scope.)

"but I realise the inertia that may exist once indefinite is applied" - Which is exactly my point. I would obviously prefer a situation where expiration is automatic unless an extension is explicitly enacted. This puts the onus on the community to keep justifying the need (at reasonable intervals obviously) rather than forcing me to have to somehow justify a lack of one. This approach provides an automatic mechanism for determining when "as long as it takes" has been arrived at.

"All parties will need to bear in mind how best their interests are served by resort to such a process, and whether more effort should be made in finding a solution first." - I completely agree and this is part of the reason I haven't invoked that option already. The other aspect of trying to work something out here first is it demonstrates good faith on my part and thereby helps to restore my credibility (what little of it I had in some people's eyes anyway). --GoRight (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

1st paragraph; all proposals have the capacity to be misinterpreted or misapplied - any wording should clarify that the proposal deals with the specific editors interaction issues and not any agenda or viewpoint ascribed to the editor. 2nd para; my point is that restrictions in those article talkpages where an existing contrary consensus exists should suffice to render noticeboard restrictions moot - no restrictions to bringing matters of concern regarding behaviour (rather than viewpoint) to the attention of admins. (I don't think RS references to dissent from majority viewpoints should be removed from article space, not without consensus that WP:WEIGHT is being properly applied, for example). This is the tricky part of the proposal. Para 3; Yes. Perhaps a fairly longer initial period, and then more frequent periods as parties get less adversarial? Para 4; ArbCom is a great place of last resort, and then only if all parties abide by the decisions - and it always remains an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC) ps. Yes, I would be happy to be a over/re-viewing admin per your "limited unblock" proposal below.

Discuss Option 2

It occurs to me that the KISS principle applies here.

We could simply put me on a short leash as it were with some sort of editing probation of a fixed duration (which includes the possibility of extension, obviously). During the period of probation if I do anything questionable the community can bring it to the attention of either 2/0 or LHVU (or some other suitable administrators as designated leash holders where I have some say in the choices). They can simply evaluate the situation and if they agree I am out of line whatever I did simply gets undone (by them) and I am barred from trying to reinstate it without first talking to whomever undid it. Violations (i.e. attempting to reinstate something without permission, exact terms TBD) to be met with simple slap on the wrist blocks of escalating duration (start at say 12 hours and increase linearly in 12 hour increments) but with the clear understanding that I cannot get out of jail on early parole ... i.e. I am forced to serve the full duration of the block.

This has the simple benefit for the admins that the community does the policing (and there will be no shortage of volunteers in this regard) and they simply need to react to incident reports on their talk pages. To discourage getting lots of false reports they can simply block anyone (under escalating terms similar to the above) that they feel is abusing this system (or me).

If I manage to make it through the probationary period with no valid incidents (i.e. where the administrators felt something had to be undone) then the probation is allowed to expire, otherwise an extension of the same length is considered.

Would something like this serve the purpose? Again, I am just discussing options or possibilities ... not saying I would agree. --GoRight (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like my proposed structuring and parameters above, please feel free to propose any variations on this theme that you think might be acceptable. What do you see as being the positive and/or negative aspects of this or some similar approach? --GoRight (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Discussion of GoRight's block and wider NPOV issues.

I would ask that the discussions currently taking place at AN be closed as inconclusive with no consensus to avoid any further wasting of community time there. If people wish to continue that discussion I freely invite them to do so but would kindly request that the discussion be moved into this section so that I might be given an opportunity to actually participate. Thank you for your consideration in this important matter. --GoRight (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. --GoRight (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: . With respect to the underlying rationale for there being legitimate skepticism of the current AGW dogma, both Gwen Gale and Arzel are making excellent points here and I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by both. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I think your best bet is WP:BASC and the voluntary undertaking you outlined above. That's the most likely venue for a properly dispassionate review of your proposal. Guy (Help!) 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  I agree and thank you for the suggestion. I reserve the right to pursue WP:BASC but I prefer to try and find an amicable solution through mutual agreement first. --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the length of your block may be correlated to the amount of time the blocker invested in preparing a statement. Brevity would be advised. I am still amazed it's standing without a policy to support it. Discretion must be given wide authority in this case Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems relevant Misplaced Pages:GAME#The_meaning_of_.27gaming_the_system.27; however, where have have your intentions for disruptions been established? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Alas, "disruption" is one of those things that tends to be in the eye of the beholder. In other words, everyone has their own definition. --GoRight (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes ... it seems folks are fundamentally questioning your intentions. Where there is no stated intention, they may assume bad faith. Let me suggest that going forward that you have a 1) Good beginning, 2) Good middle, and 3) Good ending, in disputes by stating your intended purpose upfront and preventing misunderstandings with clarified intentions. I suspect you have done some of this already but maybe not? I guess, a BASC claim for equitable remedy must come with clean hands. For me, I would am impressed to see intentions focused on humanity leading the way for principles, not the other way around. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for a conditional unblock: Since trying to conduct multiple threads of activity from within a single talk page is onerous, I seek a tightly controlled unblock until some sort of resolution to the issues related to my current block have been reached. I wish to have (a) unlimited access to my user space for any and all legitimate purposes (subject to all normal policies of course), (b) the ability to post on the talk pages of 2/0 and LHVU, and (c) the ability to resume recent change patrol activities. If I stray outside of these areas or 2/0 otherwise feels I am abusing this privilege or 2/0 simply changes his mind for whatever reason I shall not object to his reinstating his original indefinite block (although I shall at all times retain the right to appeal the original indefinite block at Arbcom if we fail to reach an agreement in that regards through other means). Would this be acceptable to 2/0? --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want this, why are you commenting on WMC on your talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is the only means I currently have of raising awareness about his disruptive behavior. 2/0 wants me to promote a collegial atmosphere and WMC's editing behavior in this case is counter to that goal. Even if I was granted the controlled unblock this would still be my only means of raising awareness of the issue, so I fail to see your point. --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So, just in case people didn't fully understand, you intend to continue inserting yourself into the various issues you were inserting yourself into (Abd, Climate Change) if unblocked (hell, even if not unblocked) by posting notices on your talk page? Hipocrite (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The disruptive behavior in question was on the probation talk page, which is ironic. Another editor is complaining of basically being harassed and nothing is being done about it. I can only assume that this is due to a lack of awareness of the issue. Do we all not have a responsibility to raise awareness of behavior which clearly runs counter to a collegial and collaborative atmosphere? I am merely doing my duty as a good citizen by pointing this out. My obligations to the larger community do not end just because I happen to be in a dispute with 2/0. --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Besides, in my current blocked state I have very little more that I can do which is productive for the project than watch the comings and goings of others and report suspicious activities. --GoRight (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More provocative editing by WMC?

See , , and . Shameful behavior from an experienced editor. --GoRight (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the suggest therapy for grief is talk over ignorance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My recent vandalism

I am contacting you as you seem to be a fairly well established user and after checking Special:RecentChanges I've determined that you are online, or at least were online during the recent past. Hopefully you will get this.

Anyway, I have recently made a number of nonconstructive edits using WP:IAR "Ignore all rules" as my rationale — as shown in the edit summaries. Much to my surprise, none of these edits have been reverted — save for one random personal attack I reverted myself, I am not an evil person. My vandalism appears to have gone completely unnoticed. While this may be the goal of some Wikipedian vandals, I am doing this purely for attention. I expect my edits to be noticed, reverted, and then responded to with a proper warning.

Please go through my edit history, revert those edits which are vandalism, and add the appropriate warning notices to my user talk page.

Thank you for your time.

--142.58.94.90 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

(a) Please make it plain that you are not me and that I have not asked you to do these things, and (b) please stop vandalizing the project as this is wrong and we lack the resources to properly combat this ever increasing problem. For the time being it would appear that I shall have to rely on others to comply with your request. While I can see the damage you have done I am powerless to do anything about it just now. --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we are the same. This just some bizarre charade I (you) have pulled off in attempt to get yourself (me) unbanned. Now you can say "I could have reverted that lunatic's vandalism if only I were not banned." --142.58.94.90 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you wasting your time here?

What a privilege being unblocked must be. After all, how else could you expend your valuable time and efforts contributing to their encyclopedia? Why don't you use your energy for something which will actually benefit you, rather than begging for the honour of serving Misplaced Pages and the evil reptilians running it from behind the scenes. --142.58.94.90 (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, over 50 000 uncited BLP article in need of looking at, have you thought about my solution to your block issue? Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am open to contributing more widely to the project (which I have already demonstrated via at least recent change patrol) but I am unwilling to voluntarily accept a climate change topic ban. I believe that my reasons for being here are important or I wouldn't have come here at all. --GoRight (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are better off out of that cesspit, wikipedia changes nothing, it matters nothing at all what are in the climate change articles, leave them to it...that is your best opportunity. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock