User talk:GoRight

An Inconvenient Truth

Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wow, that talk page is a warzone :-P Elhector 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi GoRight! As far as I can tell, you have either already violated Wikipedia's 3 revert rule, or are very close to a violation on An Inconvenient Truth. The rule is intended to limit unproductive reversions by restricting editors to no more than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, where a "revert" is defined broadly as any edit that at least partially undoes another editors work. In particular, a revert for this rule does not have to restore an older version, and reverts that undo different edits still count towards the limit. If you did not already do so, please read this rule and abide by it - preferably in letter and in spirit. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at An Inconvenient Truth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You've made at least 4 reverts in the past few hours ([1], [2], [3], [4], and a partial revert here which undid part of the prior edit). You express familiarity with WP:3RR here. It should be clear that there is no consensus supporting your proposed changes; please discuss them on the talk page after the block expires rather than continuing to reinsert them. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I do not believe that my edits constitute reverts in the sense intended by WP:3RR. In each case I actively provided commentary in the discussion page concerning my rational for the changes thus demonstrating my willingness to cooperate with the community. Also, a close inspection of my edits will reveal that I was, in fact, making alternate wordings in an attempt to accommodate the views of others while still presenting the material I feel was relevant to the article. In addition, all of my material was clearly sourced and as such should be allowed in the article. If my interpretation above is incorrect, please clarify what actually constitutes a revert under WP:3R. Does changing the wording to accommodate the views of other editors also constitute a reversion? Is merely touching a given section of text considered a revert? For example, the item you list as a partial revert is did not restore any of the original content at all but was merely a new edit.

Decline reason:

The idea behind 3RR is to prevent people from repeated edits that make the same point or convey the same information. I have reviewed your edits and you repeatedly inserted references to anthropogenic leanings. Please be more careful and if you find yourself inserting or deleting similar language repeatedly, go to the talk page and discuss it there first.

---

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.

-- But|seriously|folks  05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I award this to GoRight for the infinite patience he has shown while attempting to improve the An Inconvenient Truth article and also for having to deal with the above ban because of his efforts. Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can move this award to your main user page or wherever else you like :-) Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't given up on the AIT page but have been focusing on other topics for a while. --GoRight 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoke and some sort of fire

There are traces of Singer's fire which others aren't willing to examine. I'm not in a hurry so it will take several days for the address of the info to reach me, then I'll probably have the search space reduced by 98%. (SEWilco 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

It wasn't much of a find. The existing material had enough information for web searches to reveal a pointer to the correct date. Even without knowing the exact date, the transcripts.tv date search feature allows browsing through the episodes during the period when the fires began. The latter didn't occur to me until after I'd found the exact date, as I wasn't trying hard to find the stuff and the trail to the exact date was obvious. (SEWilco 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Understood, but still a great effort to preserve a piece of history. --GoRight 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:3rr again

looks like you close to breaking the rule again if you not done so already so watch it on the article An Inconvenient TruthOo7565 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been careful about which sections I am touching. I am done for now anyway. --GoRight 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, a second look on my part indicated that I had erred so I self-reverted. --GoRight 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may... it seems there's an ongoing problem here. It was good of you to self-revert, but the underlying issue appears to be that you're making changes without consensus and thus being reverted by a number of different users. The point of WP:3RR is not to wait for 24 hours to expire and then keep going; it's to discuss these changes on the talk page before repeatedly re-inserting them. You will find peope willing to engage in dialog; if you hit a roadblock, you can always ask for a third opinion, request for comment, or mediation. But please consider holding off on repeatedly reverting without gaining some sort of consensus for your proposed changes, which appear quite controversial. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however there are frequently some users who simply refuse to acknowledge valid points and thus use the discussion pages as a means of stonewalling any changes. If you actually take the time to read my comments on AIT I do try to compromise. I do attempt alternatives. But if even one user is determined not to let my change in I am totally blocked, and unfairly so.

I am following the rules. I am providing valid references from legitimate sources. Now given the subject matter sure there are people who won't agree with my perspective, in some cases you even seem to be one given your comment above. This is fine. We worked through the Singer page updates, right? But I had my comment on the WP:BLP/N regarding the Newsweek source for quite some time before I made my changes to force some action. I think that I would still be waiting for a reply on that point if I had not "boldly made the changes". How am I supposed to know that consensus has been reached when I get stonewalling silence in return to my points on the talk pages?

You were adamant that the Newsweek and Monbiot quotes were properly source and thus should not be deleted. No consensus had been reached there. I had not agreed. So now let us consider the edit that I self reverted. It has been discussed days ago. I have outstanding commentary in the talk page. The quote is from a notable commentator on Fox News. I was respecting the previous complaints of undue weight by replacing the AAAS quote (which was my addition in the first place) as well as a previous complaint regarding the AAAS article requiring a (free) subscription to read.

But after a couple of days of discussion and with other users supporting me my change is still stonewalled off the page with you talking about I need to reach consensus like I never even tried to do so. In my interaction with you you simply reverted my edits without so much as a howdy and I didn't feel we had a consensus over on the WP:BLP page. You simply instituted your favored option, but somehow I am at fault for doing the same? Will you now argue as fervently that properly attributed criticism should be allowed in on the AIT page as you did on the Singer page?

The quote itself should not even be that controversial. The only reason they object is because it is from someone they don't like. It is being censored not because it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion but because they don't like the person who wrote it. Do I get that same veto power? No. So why do they?

I have a real problem with the way RealClimate is being used in this context. It is like wikipedia is their personal soapbox which allows them to use their scientific credentials to vanquish dissent on anything GW related, even on things that are NOT related to the science involved like their speculating on the ExxonMobil funding. They have no more credibility to speak about what funding arrangements ExxonMobil had with NSTA that the man in the moon. Yet they are climate scientists so we must all bow before them? I don't think so.

As you are no doubt aware (since you seem to be "watching" over me) I have taken that particular case to WP:BLP. Is this not exactly what you are suggesting? Getting independent help on the issue? Am I being beligerent in this respect? No. Go read my post there. I make it quite clear that I don't want to take sides and I don't want to single any specific group out, but that I have some concerns and here are some real world examples. Go read William Connolley's page and my discussion there. There may be a pointy stick or two but the substantive parts are very reasonable and well intentioned as I discuss there.

If I sound like I am venting it is because I am. Don't take it as an attack. I appreciate your taking the time to offer advice.

--GoRight 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. I also fought a long battle to change 1 word in that article a while back. The change wouldn't have really been a big deal, it only would have corrected a portion of the article to sound more NPOV and less like an attack on a group of people. I was stonewalled from the get go on that change without anyone providing a valid reason against the change. All reasons given fell along the lines of "I just don't like it". After some back and forth the change just kept getting reverted without any comment or discussion. I complained and was basically told that if i propose a change on a talk page and no one comments on it after 2 weeks that it's still not acceptable to make the change because "no consensus" was given for the change. Basicallly it's gotten to the point where if you be bold and just make an edit it will be reverted. What is worse is if you try to propose the change on the talk page your proposal will be flat ignored. After several weeks have been given for comments and suggestions to be made and you decide to make the edit because there is the appearance that no one cares or disagrees with the proposed change it just gets reverted without discussion. What it boils down to is that in a lot of articles (and An Inconvenient Truth is a prime example of this) there are groups of entrenched editors that have taken up ownership of articles and basically now have a pocket veto power over any proposed changes that they don't like or go against any preconceived notions that they may have. Given that the above is happening I would love for someone to come up with a way to get around this. Perhaps MastCell has a suggestion? Elhector 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not watching over you, but your talk page is still on my watchlist from the 3RR block and I noticed the above discussion. I'm happy to remove your page from my watchlist and not comment further if you don't feel it's likely to be productive, though - I'm not trying to harass you. I think you're editing in good faith, or I wouldn't even bother to mention it. I don't think you've ever been "belligerent"; in fact, I've been impressed with your civility, given how contentious global-warming articles can be.

I understand your concern about the fact that one stubborn user can stall change on an article. In fact, I've run up against this myself. But from an (admittedly somewhat cursory) glance at the page history at An Inconvenient Truth, it appeared you were not being reverted by one stubborn user, but by a number of users with real, good-faith concerns about your edits.

I think you're right to be bold and make a change first - no one needs to get, or give, proactive "approval" to make an edit. It's hard to know, in most cases, whether anyone will disagree with an edit until you make it. However, if the edit is reverted, then it starts to become incumbent to get some kind of discussion going and try to achieve consensus. This is summed up in WP:BRD, which is an essay but a pretty useful one. Mind you, I don't claim to be perfect in this regard - but I got the sense that even after being reverted by several users, you were a) engaging in discussion, which is great, and b) continuing to revert to your preferred version, which is not so great. That's all. If I've oversimplified the situation, then I apologize.

I don't feel that I simply instated "my favored version" of the Singer page - there were real BLP concerns which were addressed, including those of User:ATren. There was a feeling that ExxonSecrets was not a useful source from a BLP perspective, which I don't fully agree with in this context but can accept. There was a request for more and better sources, and we used the Newsweek article, which seemed more satisfactory to everyone than the prior sourcing. It seemed to me that User:ATren's concerns were addressed, and it seemed at least initially that yours had been as well, though apparently I was mistaken there.

How, and whether, to cite RealClimate or Steven Milloy at AIT is a thorny issue and one which I don't feel like getting involved in at the moment. I do think, however, that edit-warring over the material is a mistake and in the end is not going to accomplish what you want it to. That was the point of my note above, to steer you in other directions - again, based on a fairly quick skim of the page history at AIT, so apologies if I've misinterpreted. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was venting as I mentioned above, so no problem. I don't mind your offering advice, it is appreciated (even if it doesn't sound like it from the vent above). I don't blame you for avoiding the RC/Milloy discussions. Maybe I am more partisan that I think, but I honestly am only seeking to have both sides fairly represented in this debate. Cheers. --GoRight 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to prolong a discussion like this on a user talk page, I feel it's worth noting that GoRight is being railroaded here. Some Pro-AGW editors (I don't want to name names) simply revert edits they don't like but refuse to discuss their reasoning on talk pages. AIT is a perfect example of this. So what seems like a number of editors relying on consensus is actually at times a handful of editors refusing to listen to the other side and just attempting to bully the edits away. I can reinstate GoRight's edits at times but I choose not to get in edit wars and rather I discuss things on the talk page. The fact that a few people are reverting his edits rather than one doesn't mean those few are in the right. Oren0 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't. But it does mean that continuing to reinsert the material isn't going to be effective. That's all I was getting at. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting it won't be effective but continually reverting it will be effective. Yeah, that's balanced... Elhector 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pielke jr. and sr.

Hi GR! I get the impression that you are not aware about the difference between Roger A. Pielke (sr), who is an accomplished meterologist with a nuanced opinion about climate change (roughly "CO2 is a major part of global warming, but there are other aspects, we don't understand all the processes, and anyways, local effects are much more important and much or influenced by other anthropogenic factors") and Roger A. Pielke (Jr), his son, a political scientists who mostly agrees with the science of the IPCC, but is sceptical about mitigation. --Stephan Schulz 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that there was a jr. and a sr. but I never had occasion to dig further than that. I was mostly familiar with Pielke Jr. from the CIRES website. Now that you point out the distinction and rereading the description for the CIRES website, my faux pas on the AIT talk page is obvious. I assume that when WC was arguing to keep Pielke off the list of skeptics he was actually discussing sr? Would that be correct? --GoRight 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so far we have always been discussing the older Pielke on "List of scientists...". The younger one never came up, and I'm not certain he passes the "paper in the natural sciences" criterion. --Stephan Schulz 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking again, he might pass (for his hurricane paper), but he does not seem to disagree with the core IPCC statements. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Controversial" thing on the An Inconvenient Truth article

I saw you tried to add the controversial line back to the intro of the article. Of course Raul654 has swiftly reverted your edit... There was a very lengthy discussion about this not to long ago. The conversation is in the talk page archives at this point. Take a look at it. Basically the issue came to an end because we didn't have enough support at the time to keep it in there even though we more then proved that this was true. The same players that are involved with keeping the Milloy quote out were the ones leading the rally to keep the controversial line out as well. They're way to into protecting the reputation of the film at this point so good luck :-) This all just goes back to my point about a few editors and admins feeling like they own that article... Elhector 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds familiar. I am not surprised and it is not just the AIT page that they try to systematically dilute the skeptics on. I see you noticed their little rebellion against having to actually vote. The way I look at it though, we have 3 for, 0 against, and 4-5 who abstain! Not that the vote carries any weight. I can't understand why they don't want to be tagged as having a position, how whimpy is that? Well, after a few more days we'll close the vote and then any of the fors will have to decide to either drop it or take it to mediation. How do you feel about mediation? --GoRight 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't think it's that they don't want to be tagged as having a position. I think it's more along the lines of they see our position as fringe and they see themselves as the mainstream view so why even bother taking us seriously. They're of the opinion that they run the article and are the articles "protectors" so they do not have to participate in the vote since in there eyes there is nothing really to vote on. Know what I'm saying? As for mediation I think it's good idea at this point and probably the only way left to resolve this. Were you thinking about doing an request for comments first and then going from there? I'll definitely participate in any mediation. Count me in :-) Elhector 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of following the usual escalation process, so if RFC would be most appropriate then that would be next. Yes, I understand your point and agree that is clearly part of it. To some extent if they are the "majority" they may have some case for it but I think that they go overboard in cutting criticism. Especially in a case like this when the quote isn't even criticism for the most part. They just don't like Milloy. And heaven forbid that the commoners want to have a say. Just my opinion though. --GoRight 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Will you please start adhering to this one? Your latest comments, accusing me of wanting "it both ways" with RC and your harp about ExxonMobil, must be addressing someone other than me - because i'm not using RC for anything You are getting things mixed up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Possibly. Where do you actually stand on these points? Is RC qualified to comment on the NSTA situation regarding ExxonMobil funding given that they clearly are NOT experts on the funding arrangements of the NSTA nor do they have first hand knowledge of that arrangement? Do you consider RC to be WP:RS simply because they have relevant publications or would you argue that they should not be afforded such consideration?

As for adhering to WP:AGF, I do. Where have I not? However, I believe that my requesting the same of you would be equally appropriate under the circumstances. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to get tired of this.[5]. Let me quote from WP:TALK:

Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc.

Some of us are old users of the internet - and bold face is excessive markup. It jumps out of the page, and distracts from your point. Just as shouting does. Italics on the other hand, both emphasises the part that you want to turn attention to, and at the same time is calm to read.

Had your comments been one-time occurances, then i'd overlook it - but its not (for instance [6] - where you are definitely not assuming good faith). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read your quote above from WP:TALK it occurs to me that this actually bears out my point below, as well as in [7]. The phrase "which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!" is clearly modifying "especially CAPITAL LETTERS" not everything in the list. Right? Nor was my markup excessive as it was merely highlighting the most significant portion of the text being quoted as I pointed out in my reply. Drawing one's attention to the important points being made is not the same as being excessive. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what that particular sentence in WP:TALK says bolding is not generally considered shouting whereas ALL CAPS is. This is especially true for the case we are discussing because the part in bold is clearly part of a quote and not even my own statement. It should be obvious to the reader that I am merely trying to highlight the relevant part of the statement in context and not shouting. You prefer italics for highlighting, I prefer bold. If we are to respect WP:AGF then I would argue that your continued pressing of this point is just such a violation given my explanation above.

As for [8], I clearly addressed that point [9]. Do you consider my explanation to not be in good faith? Doesn't that sort of mean that you are not WP:AGF yourself? Since you have opened this discussion I'll take the opportunity to list a few places where I believe that your adherence to WP:AGF was perhaps a bit in question:

• [10] wherein you imply that I was intentionally biasing my searches.
• [11] the phrasing of which doesn't sound to be particularly in line with WP:AGF.
• [12] This one seems pretty cut and dry.
• [13] As does this one (i.e. your claim that I am merely trying to divert the issue).
• [14] And this one as well.
• [15] This one is perhaps borderline, although it is made directly after I have provided an explanation for my actions.
• Then we come to all of these places where you seem to be of the opinion that I "haven't read the court documents", [16], [17], don't seem to be very WP:AGF either.
• [18] and this one where I have "biased" facts seems to be neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIV.

My point is simply that I am treating you just as WP:AGF and WP:CIV as I am being treated. No more, no less. When I note any changes in these respects in your commentary to me I will be happy to adjust mine to match. In any event, I disagree that either of us are actually violating WP:AGF or WP:CIV in any of these examples. Just for the record. --GoRight (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

...and thus, the whole world goes blind. Not that I grant the premise, but I'm surprised that your ambition ends at the level of your opponents' conduct.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not surprise you in the least. You have read enough of my commentary and argument to recognize that I strive primarily for what I perceive to be a fair and appropriately balanced treatment of this issue. I feel that many of the GW related pages are skewed significantly in this respect in favor of those who hold the mainstream views. I agree that you and KDP may not agree with my perspective but that does not make my perspective any less WP:AGF. Agreed?

I'm was talking about your aims, but about your methods, of course. To each his own, I guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WARNING for KDP: Do NOT follow SS's link above as there is lots of bolding on that page and you will, presumably, be horribly offended.  :) --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - i'm terribly wounded and have to go to bed to make sure my eyes don't come apart. ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a good night. I'll keep myself busy while you are sleeping!  :) Given the above discussion shall we try to effect a truce of some sort on anything resembling a pointy stick? --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's talk page

Re [19] - please don't insert your comments above others. As for formal warnings, you've done quite enough of that. I've removed your comments as unhelpful; spare me the tedia about censorship William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Inserting that one comment was intended to make it clear to whom I was responding. This is common practice as far as I can tell and the indentation made it clear that my comment was separate from the others.

Your deletion of that discussion is duly noted, as is this one which was performed without the benefit of any response but with an edit summary that read "AIT:Talk - rm waste of time, again", not very in line with WP:CIV IMHO or the wikipedia guidelines which require me to notify you on your talk page before issuing an RFC on you personally. Since the AIT matter has been resolved I have not pursued the matter further.

On the issue of censorship, I believe that the removal of my comments, all of which were WP:CIV, from both your talk page and the AIT talk page speaks for itself on that account. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We might as well note this removal [20] as well, also with the edit summary "rv: no, lets not". I can see why RealClimate is gaining such a reputation for censoring discussion that they find "inconvenient". You seem to be practicing the same thing right here on wikipedia. Your edits speak volumes in this regard. You seek to present a carefully crafted world view by simply eliminating from view that with which you disagree. This speaks to one's integrity, objectivity, and intellectual honesty IMHO. Just something for you to consider. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction of RealClimate discussion from William M. Connolley's talk:

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish". This is not in line with WP:AGF nor WP:CIV. I have pointed these types of things out to you repeatedly on the AIT page where you have repeatedly reverted my edits on the talk page no less as "trash".

I note that on the issue of Steven Milloy's comment in AIT your cadre of followers repeatedly pointed to Roger Pielke, Jr. as a good source for political issues. Now they seem to be referring to him as a mere blogger and his commentary as random blog entries from a political scientist. This latter point being particularly ironic since we are discussing a political issue. The disdain just rolls off of those comments. I find this dichotomy of opinion between the two pages to be somewhat self-serving to say the least. As is the dichotomy of arguments presented on the issue of "controversial" between the AIT and TGGWS pages.

Let us just see what turns up from outside opinions on these issues, shall we?

--GoRight (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT [21]. On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish". You have a chance to make a +ve contribution to wiki; at the moment you're failing, and the response to you is becoming laughter, as a highly respected contributor like Stephan has pointed out. Your constant reference to AGF is not a substitute for sensible behaviour (help me here folks... where was that essay about calling on AGF too much?) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"and the response to you is becoming laughter", and I assume since we are discussing issues of WP:AGF and WP:CIV that you feel this comment meets with the intent of WP:CIV. You all, collectively, make quite the habit of making comments which, while admittedly mild so as to avoid an egregious violation, clearly serve to create an decidedly unWP:CIV environment. I respectfully refer you all to WP:CIV#Examples as a refresher. Is it your contention that I am abusing the clear meaning expressed there when I simply and point out that you are creating such an uncivil environment and do so in a non-aggressive manner? --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose in (but I will), I think it's good for us to try to assume good faith as much as possible. I believe GoRight is misinformed, but I do believe he is acting in good faith. However, assuming good faith does not mean that (a) information is assumed to be correct or helpful, (b) no POV is present (we all have them), or (c) that the assumption cannot be later proven false by the actions of the editor.

I find that a lot of editors who complain about AGF (and I'm not referring to you, William) use it to justify bad behavior on their part.

I think there have been a lot of hostile responses to GoRight, and although I understand the frustration, and am definitely not the perfect editor myself in regards to being completely civil, I do think that we should be as polite as possible when pointing out to him where he is mistaken. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William's looking for WP:AAGF, which is quite applicable here. (Note especially "Carbonite's Law.") The social norms of Wikipedia are such that it usually helps your case to pretend you believe others are acting in good faith even when they aren't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite obvious to me as well as anyone with a perceptive eye for such matters that you all adhere to this principle on a regular basis. And if your rhetorical commentary in edit summaries is any indication, you likewise seem to adhere to WP:ABF as well (and yes I read the notice box at the top of the page :) ). I prefer to keep the cards on the table, as it were. Open debate and the light of truth is in the best interests of wikipedia IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remind you all that this discussion warring of WP:AGF began with KDP here. I view this as an obvious attempt to build some sort of "case" against me by alleging that I am not editing in good faith in violation of WP:AGF. Since I wish to maintain a clean record here at wikipedia it seems prudent that I should likewise take note of any instances of such "transgressions" and formally notify the appropriate individual of such so that they can clarify the situation if I am mistaken. This seems the most honest and direct approach.

I commend you, Mr. Connolley, for having assembled a cadre of such fine and respectable editors who so readily come to your aid and serve to reinforce your views so effectively. It must be a comfort to you to not have to try and support your positions all on your own like so many editors who hold views contrary to your own seem to have to do. In the end it all comes down to numerical superiority, as you are no doubt aware. The GW history and talk pages seem to be riddled with examples where this rings true over and over again. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let us at least note your removal of my comments from this section, the discussion of which is occurring here. --GoRight (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I'd suggest that you should be a little more carefull - your latest edits to Realclimate [22], was a partial revert to earlier deleted content. Which means that you in effect got over 3RR. Please be more carefull. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right. I apologize. I meant the edit in good faith as should have been evident. I would self-revert but it is now moot as other editors have already removed the material. I appreciate your not making a major issue out of this instance. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On RFC's

Could we stop commenting on postings here? It amounts to trying to undue influence the commenters and if the bait is taken - lead to long discussions that have no place there? --Kim D. Petersen 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NB: regarding your british survey - you might want to take a look at the results before putting to much faith into your interpretation of what it means. (for instance 70% of those surveyed thought that the government should impose laws to ensure reductions). [23] --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your request interesting in consideration of the fact that the comment you are referring to above was a direct response to a comment from yourself. Please note that other regulars involved in the debate from both sides have likewise commented in that section. Regardless, I whole heartedly agree with your point, as evidenced by my handling of similar issues in the TGGWS and RealClimate RfCs. I have taken steps to address your concern on the AIT RfC as well moving forward.

I will accept on good faith that your "we" above applies to both of us and not just me, unless there is a Wikipedia policy or guideline about my personally commenting within the RfC since I raised it. If there is a guideline that prevents my commenting while allowing say, your commenting, within the RfCs please point me to it as I wish to adhere to the rules of the site.

Finally, with respect to the British Poll, (1) the number of people who support regulation is irrelevant to the points being raised, (2) your statistic still leaves 30% disagreeing or undecided which is well within the realm of being controversial, and (3) I was careful to directly quote the text of the article so that the statement could not be construed to have been my personal opinion (as opposed to that of the article's author). --GoRight 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find it as interesting as you want - since my comment was a comment on a comment (can you see the what i'm driving at?). And i can assure you that it was meant in good faith. I could see that this would end up with the usual bickering. --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As I have said above I agree with your point and have taken what I thought was appropriate action. Do you at least agree with that much? --GoRight 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate (from William M. Connolley talk page)

I'm leaving this here, in case you want it. When you can manage to simultaneously add "I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future" and "Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us?" I think the pointlessness has become only too obvious William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Actually I said as much a while back but I continued in the hope you would share my desire to improve our relations. While you repeatedly pressed me for a yes or no answer in a matter of trivia I have simply asked you to respond similarly to a question of direct importance to the level of civility being expressed on Wikipedia and your refusal to give a simple answer to a simple question serves as a profound indicator of the futility of which you speak.

On my response to your request that I be less prolix what else am I supposed to do but use smaller and simpler sentences? Is this not, in effect, exactly what you were asking me to do? I find it confounding that you ask me to take a certain action and then when I agree to take that action you complain about that. --GoRight 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish". This is not in line with WP:AGF nor WP:CIV. I have pointed these types of things out to you repeatedly on the AIT page where you have repeatedly reverted my edits on the talk page no less as "trash".

I note that on the issue of Steven Milloy's comment in AIT your cadre of followers repeatedly pointed to Roger Pielke, Jr. as a good source for political issues. Now they seem to be referring to him as a mere blogger and his commentary as random blog entries from a political scientist. This latter point being particularly ironic since we are discussing a political issue. The disdain just rolls off of those comments. I find this dichotomy of opinion between the two pages to be somewhat self-serving to say the least. As is the dichotomy of arguments presented on the issue of "controversial" between the AIT and TGGWS pages.

Let us just see what turns up from outside opinions on these issues, shall we?

--GoRight (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT [24]. On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish". You have a chance to make a +ve contribution to wiki; at the moment you're failing, and the response to you is becoming laughter, as a highly respected contributor like Stephan has pointed out. Your constant reference to AGF is not a substitute for sensible behaviour (help me here folks... where was that essay about calling on AGF too much?) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose in (but I will), I think it's good for us to try to assume good faith as much as possible. I believe GoRight is misinformed, but I do believe he is acting in good faith. However, assuming good faith does not mean that (a) information is assumed to be correct or helpful, (b) no POV is present (we all have them), or (c) that the assumption cannot be later proven false by the actions of the editor.

I find that a lot of editors who complain about AGF (and I'm not referring to you, William) use it to justify bad behavior on their part.

I think there have been a lot of hostile responses to GoRight, and although I understand the frustration, and am definitely not the perfect editor myself in regards to being completely civil, I do think that we should be as polite as possible when pointing out to him where he is mistaken. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William's looking for WP:AAGF, which is quite applicable here. (Note especially "Carbonite's Law.") The social norms of Wikipedia are such that it usually helps your case to pretend you believe others are acting in good faith even when they aren't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having considered the comments above carefully, as well as those which have been removed, I wish to make my admittedly general concerns more clear. I believe that in the face of some of the characterizations, taunts, and jeers which have been leveled at me by a rather consistent group of editors, yourself included, that I have remained generally WP:CIV throughout our interactions, with perhaps the commentary on this specific section being a bit of an exception. In that respect I will accept in good faith your characterization of those comments as being "unhelpful" as being correct.

My concern is that the taunts and jeers contribute to a generally unWP:CIV environment overall. I understand that you (collectively) may find my positions to be not in line with your own but I don't think that terms such as "trash", "trollish", or "absurd" will help to improve our relations. That is my only complaint, if you even want to call it a complaint. It is more an observation and intended to be well intentioned constructive criticism at this point. I hope that you will accept it as such.

As a side note, you make reference above to "+ve". I am unfamiliar with this term, could you please explain its meaning and use? --GoRight 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify whether you accept you were in error above William M. Connolley 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To which part? I would ask the same of you, BTW. This is clearly an attempt on my part to improve our on-going relations. Are you willing to do likewise? --GoRight 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for good relations, excess complaints about CIV aren't conducive. But lets sort out the errors first: I mean the para starting "I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT" William M. Connolley 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the specifics of exactly when and where you referred to my edits and/or comments as "trash", "amounting to trolling", "absurd", and whether or not you consider "the response to [me] is becoming laughter" is all adequately captured in the histories of the relevant pages. If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected. The details of when and where are not important. The characterizations, taunts, and jeers are important for the reasons described above and as discussed in WP:CIV. I am not some delicate flower that cannot take a taunt or a jeer, but if we are to live by the letter AND the spirit of WP:CIV they should be minimized. If I have unfairly labeled a specific instance as being WP:CIV in error, I apologize for such. I do not, however, apologize for simply following the stated rules and guidelines for how to respond in such cases as I understand them.

I believe that the letter and the spirit of WP:CIV says that taunts and jeers when applied on a regular basis is considered detrimental to the community. As such, my pointing them out when they occur in an otherwise civil manner should not be considered a problem and in fact should be considered proper conduct in the spirit of WP:CIV.

I wish to try and find a less pointed and contentious style of interaction (from both sides). In that light and consistent with the spirit of WP:CIV I agree to be more discerning in pointing out infractions if you will attempt to be more judicious in your references to my comments and/or edits. --GoRight 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected... sorry guv, not good enough. Delete the initial "If" and I'll be happy. You did err - or rather, I assert that you did, and I'd like you to be honest enough to admit it, or to defend yourself. Please note that putting quotes around something, like "trollish", means you believe that exact thing was said. Now, you've managed 5 pointless repetitions of CIV, when what is required is honesty and clarity William M. Connolley 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I not trying to be evasive here. I believe that my post basically accepted that if I had erred I stood corrected (i.e. I agreed). If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree with "I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT [14]. On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish"." Fine, I so agree. But to focus on these details is to miss the larger point.

Points of clarification.

1. I also do not mean anything specific by my use of WP:CIV above other than to be extremely precise in my meaning. Each such instance above could be switched with the more informal and less precise word "civil". While my usage above may make the text appear more aggressive that was not the intent. The intent above was to convey that I was meaning precisely the definition of "civil" as spelled out in WP:CIV, nothing more. I apologize if this editing style seems offensive and I will attempt to write in a less "lawyer like" fashion (see discussion of double quotes below) moving forward on this particular issue.
2. My use of double quotes above is not meant to convey exact wording but is rather used in a manner comparable to when the High Court Ruling on AIT uses the term "errors". Although the confusion is understandable in this context. For our purposes here, "trollish" means simply that you referred to my comments as being trollish in nature. I don't think I am being deceptive when I interpret "amounting to trolling" (literally in this case) to mean trollish in nature (i.e. "trollish"). The same would apply to my other quoted texts above and I apologize for any misunderstanding on this point.

It is not my intent to mischaracterize your statements and, as I said, the exact wording and context are adequately recorded in the relevant edits of the relevant pages if for some reason it should become necessary to be more precise. My point is not concerned with the exact wording being used, but rather the nature and the implications thereof. --GoRight 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So many words, and yet you're still not there. You're now down to If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree... which isn't acceptable, because once again you've prefixed it with If. You use too many words: lets try to make it simple: you complained I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? William M. Connolley 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Fine, I so agree" isn't meeting with your satisfaction? This statement is not conditional in the above text.

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? Yes, that was an error on my part. It should have read: I must protest your characterization of my comments on the AIT talk page as "trollish", or "amounting to trolling" to be more precise.

Is there a point to this trip 'round the Mulberry bush? --GoRight 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am rather unsure why you are bothering. Your protest is rejected. +ve == positive William M. Connolley 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:CIV and WP:DISPUTE suggest that I should make an attempt to maintain better relations in circumstances such as this. I believe that I have now made a substantial effort to do so but it appears that the desire to do so is not reciprocated. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel absolutely sure that there is not parity of good faith between us William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree given your behavior, as noted below, wherein you accuse me of having "pretended agreement" when the record clearly bears out my statement. But this is a digression from the question I asked. Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us? --GoRight 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to work hard to get to the point where your faith is as good as mine. But keep trying. Already there is progress - you haven't mentioned CIV/AGF for a while. But the mulberry stuff was a step backwards. A hint: avoid digressions; your prose is too prolix already William M. Connolley 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the mulberry stuff goes to good faith, it was merely a reference to the fact that I was here trying to patch things over and you were decidedly giving me the run around on trivia rather than addressing the larger point.

Contrast that to you making the following proclamation (your exact words): "So is your use of "Another good faith attempt..." in the edit comments. All edits are assumed to be in good faith, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Calling them IGF doesn't help. Don't do it." Then less than one day later and in the very same article you accuse me of "pretending agreement" when in fact I had stated "limited agreement" based on the agreement reached, through substantive discussion on the discussion page, with MastCell.

I apologize if you find my text too prolix. I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future.

EDIT: Oh, and to borrow a quote from you above: "So many words, and yet you're still not there." Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us? An simple yes or no will be sufficient. --GoRight 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I must now formally protest your characterization of my clearly documented claim of a limited agreement (based on my interactions on the talk page with the only editor, MastCell, actually discussing the issue in any depth) as being a "pretended agreement" (your exact wording in this case). This seems to be decidedly outside the realm of WP:AGF. I make note of the fact that your revert to discussion ratio seems rather high on this matter. Could you please either engage in the substantive discussion or refrain from simply engaging in edit warring behavior? --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted; rejected William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS additions

It would be best not to keep pushing the additions -- while I think there is some valuable information in them, a lot of it is poorly written (spelling and grammar) or unsourced. Besides, the changes are too widespread to enforce in a lump-sum edit. It would take a lot of effort, and it's certain that not all of them would make it, but the changes would have a better chance of survival in the article if they were discussed one at a time. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My revert was only to counter Raul's drive by revert, a common practice with him, to give the author a chance to argue his points. I agree with your assessment but I disagree with Raul's tactics. If Raul wants to argue the point let him argue it. SS at least left a minor comment in the edit summary. This is a case of not biting the newcomers, IMHO. --GoRight 18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"better chance of survival in the article if they were discussed one at a time." And this goes to the heart of the matter. Neither SS or Raul attempted to engage on the points as the author indicated they should do. Instead they prefer to slash and burn without regard to the other party. They simply use their numerical superiority to overwhlem the newcomers. I am simply seeking to counter that effect where I believe it is being unfairly applied. --GoRight 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please raise the points on the TGGWS talk page. With an endlessly argued over article which has reached a fairly stable state, largescale, unreferenced changes that clearly promote a particular point of view will be reverted. However I believe that essentially your intention is to make the article better. While I think Wikipedia is correct to reflect that TGGWS has been proved to be incorrect about several of its most important scientific claims (and that's very well referenced), there may be parts of the article which stray from NPOV. At the risk of opening Pandora's box, try to persuade me! I would like to believe that you can be a productive Wikipedian, even (perhaps especially) on issues where your views are in the minority. Some battles may be easier to win than changing the word "controversial". What people find frustrating is when arguments are endlessly repeated with no new material. Find something which hasn't been argued over endlessly over before, and you may find people more willing to discuss it. --Merlinme (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest- having reviewed the edits again- there isn't a whole lot in them I think is worth keeping. And really the editor could have expected there to be resistance to making them. I think it's strongest on what the programme actually said. Large parts of criticism of the programme have been deleted without any justification. Large parts of the intro have been rewritten, including spelling mistakes, and deleting major contributors (why?). I don't remember anything about "coherance and moral imperative" of environmentalists; it may be there, but I'd like to see a quote. If it's not there, then it's editorialising. Why has incorrectly labelling the time axis been replaced by the less precise "typo"? The edit claims that the graph was replaced by the IPCC graph, which I think is simply incorrect- if I'm wrong, I need to see a reference. Why was the paragraph about Eigil-Christensen (who Durkin still mentions in articles) removed? On top of various spelling mistakes, you can understand why people were sceptical. I would probably have reverted it myself. There may be good material in there somewhere- but it needs to be argued for, and referenced. I can understand why you want to resist reversion of pro-TGGWS edits, but you would probably be taken more seriously if you argued for the more defensible changes. --Merlinme (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean for my single revert to cause so much controversy. As stated above I was not endorsing the content so much as rejecting Raul's drive-by tactics, something I myself have run into in the past. Note that I have left Stephan's second revert stand since I consider my countering of Raul's un-noteworthy revert to have restored a level playing field between Stephan and Wolfpatra who I then invited to discuss the matter on the talk page per wikipedia policy. If we adhere to WP:AGF we are to assume that Wolfpatra made his edits in good faith. I therefore consider Stephan's (and more specifically Raul's) wholesale reverts without so much as a by your leave to be inappropriate. If they are to undo the assumed good faith work of others they should be required to state specifically why they object and allow the original author to defend their position before their revert stands. An outcome which allows for the efforts of others to be simply wiped clean without any discussion is against the letter and the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:TALK, IMHO of course.

If Wolfpatra fails to defend his points successfully on the talk page I have no problem with them being reverted. --GoRight (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you want here- the original revert had an edit comment with something like "revert unsourced whitewashing", which seems reasonable to me. When an article is replaced with something obviously worse, there's no onus on a reverter to provide any justification beyond an edit comment. Whoever else watches the page can see the diff and quickly agree (or disagree). It's up to the editor who made unsourced changes with spelling mistakes to justify them at that point. --Merlinme (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" is editorializing in the comments and doesn't foster a WP:CIV environment overall. I made one revert and gave a reason why. As I have stated above my problem was not with Stephan so much as Raul in this case because of his drive-by revert without a comment. If Wolfpatra doesn't bother to defend his edits on the talk page then Stephan's last revert will stand just as you want. I, personally, am not looking for much in the way of modified behavior here except for (1) people such as Raul to stop reverting without stating why, and (2) we maintain a WP:CIV environment by toning down the "whitewashing" comments. If you feel I have over reacted in this instance I respect that and I hereby apologize. --GoRight (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Scibaby

Hey, User:Scibaby is the most prolific sockpuppeteer in the history of wikipedia. On his user page you should find the list of his alter egos. Brusegadi (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, 213 accounts and counting. Impressive tenacity. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing and BLP vio

If you keep up the disruption by both attacking an editor and misrepresenting the substance of an article to do so, your account will be blocked. It is a violation of WP:BLP and it is dishonest. Do not make an edit like this one again. R. Baley (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just insert criticism, you blatantly misrepresented the substance of the article in order to do so. I am well aware of WP:BLP (thank-you for directing me to it again and explaining it to me) . . .I am also aware of WP:Civil. And you have responded by what many would consider an attack on WMC at my talk page (it's the "unsavory" bit, for anyone else following along). Any further comments along those lines will lead to a block. If you re-insert the material (in the original link above), you will also be blocked. R. Baley (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not misrepesent anything. Given that the article in question has already been whitewashed in his bio, deleting my edits is a prime example of WP:UNDUE. It is your actions which have resulted in a clearly one-sided representation of the content of the article, not mine. My edits restore appropriate balance. If you don't accept a direct quote from the article (again, how is a direct quote a misrepresentation?) perhaps we can paraphrase the key points, to wit: In March, 2005 Mr. Connolley was accused of pushing what was termed his singular and narrow views on climate science by by systematically removing any point of view that did not agree with his, for which he received a one-revert-a-day parole.

This is merely a statement of fact as reported in a [WP:RS] article. It is stated in a neutral POV per Wikipedia standards. The fact that this occured is undeniable so I see no basis on which you can continue to block its inclusion in the article. --GoRight (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. R. Baley (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming political cartoon

I took the liberty of removing a political cartoon posted by another editor and a comment by you about it. I don't think this line of discussion was helping. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no objection. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon's article on the Singer article

Re: your recent edit to Fred Singer - Solomon's article has been discussed on the talk page, see Talk:Fred_Singer#A_new_blog_says_this_article_is_being_censored. It is naval gazing, and is not to be included in the article. Do not re-add it. Raul654 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to check your facts. The article cited was not discussed on the talk page, at least not at the reference you have provided. Regardless of the opinions expressed there, the edit is properly sourced and should stay in the article. You can hardly argue that it is not relevant to the article. --GoRight (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to your single minded pursuit to in some way attack WMC, if you add the same (or similar) material 'anywhere as you did to the Singer article you will be blocked. R. Baley (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to play this game. I've started a discussion about your disruptive editing on the administrator's noticeboard. Raul654 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I added an entry on the admin notices board since I didn't see yours. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

naval or navel? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, without a bit more context this makes no sense. Please explain. --GoRight (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

naval gazing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And to what specifically are you referring? Is this just a general inquiry or are you basing this on a specific action or topic? --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[25] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent:

OK, so you are referring to Raul654's misspelling, presumably because you feel this is an activity that I am engaged in?  :-)

I never really understood the phrase "navel gazing" to be quite honest. So you feel that I am spending my time fruitlessly and without legitimate purpose or something? Perhaps so given my recent smack downs, but I am not one to give up easily.

Look, on the whole topic of the Solomon pieces and so forth in recent days I know that this will be hard to believe but it truly isn't personal. There is no question that you have made great contributions to Wikipedia and deserve some level of respect because of it, and while I don't expect you to agree I honestly feel that you and some of your companions are over zealous in your policing of the GW pages (and I mean policing from your POV, obviously, which is the whole point).

I can honestly say that I respect you for having strong convictions and your tenacity at defending them, which I view as a good thing, but I also wish that you would extend the same courtesy to those with whom you disagree. You can respect people and simply agree to disagree and allow other points of view to be put forth, you know. It isn't about crushing your opponents at all costs. This, again, is the crux of my complaint and thus the impetus for my actions. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm sorry, I've been far too cryptic while just lightly amusing myself. All I was doing was noting Rauls homophone (slightly prompted by the earlier [26]). It has absolutely no bearing on any other disagreements at all and is no comment on your behavior. I thought that was obvious but obviously it wasn't, so I apologise for the irritation this must have caused, which was none of my purpose. As for Solomon... are we in disagreement there? I didn't think so, but I get into so many fights that sometimes I forget. BTW, if you're interested in beating back the evil left-wing hordes, you might be interested in Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for reading too much into it then. For once you haven't succeeded in irritating me, however, hence my offer of an Olive Branch of sorts even if it wasn't completely unconditional. As for Solomon you are correct, we haven't directly crossed paths there. I had assumed some of my recent activity might have caught your notice in passing but apparently not, I know that you have your fingers in a lot of pies as it were. It must be getting late there, have a good night. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you re-add Solomon's post to the Singer article, I'm going to block you. Consider this your final warning on the subject. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon's Op/Ed is a perfectly acceptable source as has been discussed extensively, see [27]. And please stop with your abusive threats and stalking. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the topic do not a consensus make. Other people have said it does not belong. Since your return, you have been disrupting numerous articles with your edit warring, and it stops now. Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Where am I being disruptive? I am attempting to make positive contributions to the articles I am editing. The fact that they might conflict with your personal POV, which you are trying to enforce here with threats, does not make them disruptive. As for edit warring, I am not edit warring as you claim. Today's contribution was substantively different from my previous version as you are well aware, and it was specifically designed to address the concerns regarding attacks on WMC. This version contains nothing that can be considered and attack on anyone while clearly making the salient point that a WP:RS has called into question the validity of how Singer is represented in his BLP, taken as a whole. This is a legitimate criticism of the article and whitewashing as you are attempting to do now is simply your way of pushing your POV, through threats and intimidation. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Where am I being disruptive? - Pretty much every edit you have made since you came back.

Again, in your opinion and according to your personal POV. Many of my edits enjoy support from other users. That you fail to recognize that doesn't make it not so. Seem here for one such case: [28]. In this case the change I am defending wasn't even my change even though I agree with it. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to make positive contributions to the articles I am editing. - You have failed. Badly. And wasted a lot of good contributors' time in the process.

Again, in your opinion and according to your personal POV. Have you noticed a trend yet? --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they might conflict with your personal POV, which you are trying to enforce here with threats, does not make them disruptive. - The fact your claims don't agree with reality makes them disruptive. The fact that the fringe earthquake claims you were trying to insert into the global warming article violated Wikipedia policy regarding the sourcing of science articles (as defined by the arbitration committee in the pseudoscience case) makes you disruptive. The fact that when this was pointed out to you, you apparently didn't bother to read the arbcom decision that was quoted - that makes you disruptive. The fact that you are trying to insert a hit-piece by an ex-Wikipedian into WMC's and Fred Singer's articles - that makes you disruptive. In short, you are doing nothing useful here, but you are causing a lot of disruption. Perhaps you should head over to Conservapedia, where reality takes a back seat to ideology - I think you'd find the atmosphere better for you.

When were you elected the judge of what matches reality? I don't recall that memo coming across my desk.

Calling LS a wikipedian is rather disingenuous given his duration and level of participation here. Even so, you of course ignore the fact that the only reason he IS an EX-wikipedian is precisely the contentious environment he describes in his article. The histories of the pages speak for themselves on this point. I can certainly understand why you might want misrepresent the reality contained within those histories, again given your personal POV. There's that trend again. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As for edit warring, I am not edit warring as you claim. - Funny you should mention this. I just went and counted - you've made 19 article space edits since you came back, and 18 of them were immediately reverted because they were crackpottery/pseudoscience published in fringe or other unreliable sources. It seems to me that you have done almost nothing *but* edit warring since you came back.

You're not helping your case here, actually. The fact that properly sourced additions which run counter to your personal POV (and that of other "regulars" on these pages), only serves to confirm the validity of the LS article. The only questionable reference I have used was the one on the Earthquake reference and I quickly agreed to drop any attempts at re-adding it, see [29], precisely so the article would NOT be disrupted needlessly. Is that not the appropriate course of action under the circumstances?

Today's contribution was substantively different from my previous version as you are well aware, and it was specifically designed to address the concerns regarding attacks on WMC. This version contains nothing that can be considered and attack on anyone while clearly making the salient point that a WP:RS has called into question the validity of how Singer is represented in his BLP, taken as a whole. - today's contribution was you re-adding the same thing (to both Singer's and WMC's article) that you added yesterday and which was reverted.

The material being discussed on both of these pages is nothing like my original additions. I think you need to review your facts before making these grandstands. Also the text on the WMC page was the work of another editor, not me, I am merely defending it from the obvious POV pushing going on here. Since you like arbcom rulings, check out this one: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a multiplayer role playing game, and the 3 revert rule does not give you a license to edit war within limits. Raul654 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So, stop treating it like one by following me around looking for chances to attack me. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on preferred Gray version

GoRight, you reverted CHL with an edit comment that said I supported that other version, but you misunderstood me - I preferred this, which is what you reverted away from. Kim has restored the CHL version which I endorsed. Just wanted to clarify so there's no mixup. :-) ATren (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. --GoRight (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In case you've not been notified already, please see:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight (permanent link)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you should not add the objected-to material any more. You may, if you wish, use the Requests for Comment process if you feel super strongly.

I will note, however, that this is a collaborative project and the material you are debating at Talk:William Connolley falls into a gray area. A reasonable case can be made both pro and con for its addition. This one is not worth throwing yourself on your sword particularly given the ferocious opposition of several editors; we can really use your editorial skills elsewhere. You may find it useful to just move on to one of our other 2 million + articles, some of which are wretched. We could especially use help with our biographies of living people -- see that noticeboard for ideas (or just hit the random article link in the navigation section of the far left column a few times.) --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I added some additional comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I recognize good advice when I see it. I agree that further direct addition of the material without outside support through something like an RFC would not only be futile but likely to just create problems for myself moving forward. I appreciate your support. --GoRight (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with A.B., there's no point in fighting that war. Clearly there's a double standard around here when it comes to certain ideological debates: BLPs on one side of the debate are filled with claims sourced to blogs and opinion pieces, while BLPs on the other side are vigourously protected from such content. But really, the encyclopedic solution is to not include such material (per BLP), so I suggest you focus on removing such material from bios on "your" side rather than attempting to add it to those on the "other" side. ATren (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I undestand the spirit of what you are saying but I believe that I have more than adequately supported the case that the National Post Op/Ed is a legitimate source, and hence meets Wikipedia guidelines, and so blocking it just because you don't like it is objectionable to me. Even so, I have already accepted the version on WMCs page as fine and it was provided by someone other than myself. Hopefully it will survive but I can bet that within a week it will have been removed.

In the case of the Singer article the latest version I posted should be completely non-controversial as it is supportive of the subject and the reference provided meets the general WP:RS criteria for newspapers as well as the more specific WP:BLP criteria. Am I wrong here? They just don't want the reference because it might lead people to the Op/Ed. --GoRight (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for Harassment

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. R. Baley (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale: Continuing campaign to harass William M. Connolley across multiple pages despite multiple warnings to cease (some examples: diff1diff2 from Raul654 last warning). The line has been skirted since June 22, but this edit clearly crossed it [30]. Archived threads at ANI and AN are linked: ANI thread here and AN thread here. Please rethink your campaign here. R. Baley (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley, after reviewing the second piece of my edit at [31] I admit I was out of line. If you would be so kind as to unblock me, I will issue an apology on WMC's talk page and agree to be more diplomatic in the future. OK? The block will remain on my record so the primary value in it from your perspective has been achieved already ... in addition to getting me to agree to be more diplomatic, of course. --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GR, done. Though from my standpoint, I never require an apology (in general, however, I have noticed that things work better here when they're freely given --moreso than when not done). Also, the primary objective I have is that there not be any personal attacks on WMC. Should that stop (and for now I will trust your assurance that it will) I doubt you'll be hearing from me. Drop a line on your talk page if there are any problems with the autoblock or anything. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your trust in this matter. The system is still blocking me from editing, however, I don't know the specifics but the message does talk about an autoblock. Your assistance will continue to be appreciated.

I would appreciate one point of clarification to avoid problems moving forward. Will you consider continued attempts on my part to lobby for material such as that found here [32] as a violation of this trust? Including some appropriate mention of the Solomon article is not without some level of support [33]. --GoRight (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

checking into it. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Think I found it, let me know. R. Baley (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK it is allowing me to edit now. Thanks for checking into it. I sincerely intend to do my best to act in a more diplomatic manner with respect to WMC moving forward. Regarding my question above would you consider those activities to be undiplomatic by their very nature? I only ask so that I can give the line you wish to draw sufficiently wide berth per our understanding here. --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to craft an answer, so here goes. . .As to your other question, I don't personally agree with including it. I also don't think it serves you well to be seen as pursuing it with such persistence. But as before (this last week I mean), I won't block for advocating. But you do need to realize that at some point (and I don't know when that point is) advocacy can become tendentious. Everybody here volunteers, and no one (as far as I know) wants to spend all of their time arguing over a single source, or a single word, in what can (at the time) seem like virtual perpetuity. There are lots of editors here who advocate for different things (and generally do better when their advocacy is seen as subordinate to building an encyclopedia).

I guess that's getting off topic, basically, you want to be perceived as an editor with a POV (which after all can't be helped) and not as a POV warrior who edits (not saying that you are one). So, I probably won't like it, but advocating with respect (no matter what the subject) goes a long way with me personally. R. Baley (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is what I had assumed based on your not questioning my activities along those lines, specifically, but seemed more directly concerned with obvious WP:NPA specific concerns. But I have learned not to assume things, hence my question. I realize that my views may run counter to that of the regular editors here, which will cause them to see my edits as violating WP:NPOV, but my primary purpose in being here is to introduce some level of fairness to the pages that I edit in terms of what I perceive as being WP:NPOV violations, as well as the double standards which are being systematically applied. I think that may edits on the Fred Singer and William M. Connelley pages since I have returned are consistent with this statement. They are clearly using their numbers to prevent minority views from being inserted, even when they are merely clarifying additions to provide proper context for the points they have inserted. The treatment of skeptics such as Fred Singer and William M. Gray are particularly biased and aggressively reverted when corrections are attempted. Take for instance, things like this: [34]. How can this be justified as anything other than trying to mislead the reader? Singer accepted ... received unsolicited actually ... $10,000 in 1998 and 2000 if we are to believe [35]. This has to be a miniscule percentage of Singer's budget since 1998. How is the possibly NPOV? Do you think that this is NPOV? Read the quote in/from the article. (Not that the current revert was by one of the regulars.)