User talk:GoRight

Historical References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.

Back Pointer 1 Back Pointer 6

Back Pointer 2 Back Pointer 7

Back Pointer 3 Back Pointer 8

Back Pointer 4

Back Pointer 5

Blocked (2)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia:Civility, but it is really not being used as a term of art with some byzantine Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia: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)

[Redacted]

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.

Please hold on, I've contacted the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update, the blocking admin is reviewing this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well made pledges ... I wish you the best in keeping them. Writing is easier than practice. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, my community has over 30 monastics and many others with various levels of vows. There is at least an annual renewal and other opportunities for confession, repair, healing and forgiving inevitable infractions. What seems to be most important is staying on the right path even as falling astray occurs. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?

Extended content

2/0, this seems to be the first order of business if I am to be allowed to continue at all. So please do me the courtesy of a reply. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC) This remains an evolving situation as evidenced by the history of this page, so let me just list the main points and we can discuss them together in this section or severally in subsections, whatever makes the most sense. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution. Such issues have been raised here time and time again. I appreciate the wording of your current unblock request, but I think it is time and past time for clear editing restrictions rather than pretty generalities if you are to continue contributing here. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I can certainly understand your skepticism regarding my pledges at this point and freely acknowledge that it is my own fault for finding myself in this current predicament. I wish to put this matter behind me as cleanly and with as little fuss and additional discussion as possible at this point. I would also like a chance to redeem myself on my own recognizance now that you have truly driven the point home. To those ends, might you be convinced to allow me to proceed on my pledges alone if I further offer that for a period of 1 year I shall not object if you reinstate the existing block and return us to this point should you ever feel that I am not honoring these pledges in good faith for any reason? --GoRight (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you could be allowed to edit via a mentoring agreement. Then the above restrictions could be relaxed somewhat. If you want to edit a climate change related page or contribute to an AN/I thread, you notify your appointed mentor . You discuss with the mentor what you want to do there and then the mentor can either approve or disapprove. In case the mentor approves he/she can still impose some restrictions, e.g. asking you to change the way you want to put forward your argument there. Count Iblis (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I genuinely like the tone of your latest unblock statement, but I fear I must decline. These and similar issues have been raised here quite a number of times, and I would like any unblock to be informed by that history. I am sorry, but I believe that well-defined conditions as free as possible from the potential for differing subjective opinions are required if you are to continue contributing productively. I sincerely hope that this will be the last time you are blocked, and that the issues other people have had in editing with you may be resolved. - 2over0 public (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) OK, I understand and I bear you no ill will because of this. I was just trying to minimize any further drama and disruption. Given this, what are you seeking from me? You seem to want to have a conversation, which I welcome, but I am not clear on what exactly the purpose is at this point. For example, is it acceptable for me to query you about the details of the evidence and the reasoning that drove you to your conclusions so that I and others might better understand where you are coming from? Such a back and forth discussion without fifty intermixed yelling voices might help others in the community to learn from my bad example, no? And depending on where such a conversation takes us perhaps you might reconsider your position? I am asking because I don't wish to offend by starting off asking lots of questions which might make me appear defensive which is not my intent. My intent is to ensure that we (and everyone else who is watching) have a common understanding of the underlying issues and to help me feel as though you considered all of the relevant nuances before coming to your conclusion. It is also my hope that such a slow and deliberative exchange would be a tangible step towards fostering the collaborative environment we are both seeking by serving as a model for how to conduct civil interactions. I am particularly interested in your personal perspective since it is you who has decided to take this action against me, so to that end I would ask that others refrain from interjecting comments into this section. If they want to comment they can do so elsewhere. Would you be open to such a discussion before we move on to the task of coming to a mutual agreement on the wording for specific restrictions? --GoRight (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Many of the issues raised by your case apply also to several other editors who have commented at this page, so I would be willing to work this out in some more detail than my original blocking statement. I have no problem with you pinging me by email or raising issues there that you would prefer to deal with in private, but for the most part I would prefer to keep this conversation here. In many instances you were contributing to an already extant atmosphere of incivility, bad faith, and mutual antagonism. Taken individually, this can be an extenuating circumstance, but when it becomes a pattern something needs to change. The history of your block log, warnings left here, and your contributions over the few weeks preceding this latest block served to establish that pattern. So, ask away. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC) OK, excellent. So allow me to proceed in a deliberative manner so that we may properly explore and discuss the various facets of the problem in due course. To that end let me consider each of your areas of concern, in turn, beginning with your main concern. I shall endeavor to utilize section headings to help scope the discussion as we proceed and to facilitate the editing process. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Collapse well intentioned proposal === Creative Proposal === Agree on an essay topic and tone of language (serious or humorous). GoRight creates the essay with sources (wp links ok) to the approval of 2over0 who then removes the block for a productive contribution by GoRight. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC) === Civility === "Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive." ==== Fundamental Principles ==== "In many instances you were contributing to an already extant atmosphere of incivility, bad faith, and mutual antagonism. Taken individually, this can be an extenuating circumstance, but when it becomes a pattern something needs to change." OK, this seems a fine a proper statement and one which can be used to guide this discussion a bit as we proceed. I would first like to make sure that we are aligned on some of the fundamental principles at play here so that we are operating from the same perspective. I assert that the following principles are self-evident in this context and that they reflect existing community practice: All wikipedia editors are equal peers and as a result the application of sanctions or editing restrictions should be unbiased, fairly applied, and weighted in accordance with the severity of the infraction. In this context unbiased means without regard to an editor's points of view or who their political allies may be. Weighted in accordance with the severity of the infraction means that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak, and that cruel or unusual punishments (actually preventative measures) are to be avoided. Fairly applied means that similar weighted infractions receive similarly weighted sanctions or restrictions. All wikipedia editors should be judged by and held to the same standard of conduct as represented by demonstrably accepted community standards and norms as exemplified by editors with well established editing histories and who enjoy visible support from not only the community at large, but from within the administrative community as well. While I believe that 2/0 and I share a common vision of what an ideal collaborative editing environment should be, the reality is that wikipedia falls short of such an ideal. As a result the proper standard of behavior to which someone such as myself should be held is not the ideal, but rather demonstrably accepted community standards and norms as exemplified by editors with well established editing histories and who enjoy visible support from not only the community at large, but from within the administrative community as well. This means that in order to determine whether someone such as myself has crossed a line in terms of civility, as well as how far beyond that line something lies, that the line in question is demonstrably accepted community standards and norms. Do you agree? If not, please explain. Also, we may have to expand this list, as needed, depending on the direction that this conversation takes. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC) I have read this several times, but I am still not sure where you are going with it. We are all volunteers here, and need to treat each other with respect and decorum even, or perhaps especially, when we disagree. Fundamentally, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that goal. Neutrality of enforcement aids in that goal because people generally prefer to work in a collegial environment with clearly established standards of behaviour. To a certain extent, WP:Civility is self-enforcing, as people will tend to ignore people who habitually violate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "I have read this several times, but I am still not sure where you are going with it." - My purpose should be plain enough. We both seek to foster a collegial environment based on mutual understanding and respect. To do that we must clearly understand and agree on what that means. In your opening statement on civility you stated: "I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above..." I understand your concern, and to some level may even agree with it, and so it would seem that we are not yet at the level of a mutual understanding. So my purpose here is to clearly convey what my understanding is and then to simply ask you if you agree, or not, with the intent to clearly delineate where we are in agreement (i.e. we have common ground) and where we are not (i.e. to identify the potential sources of our disagreement). Since I have no reason to believe that we are particularly unique in this environment I also contend that there is benefit to the overall community in holding such a discussion so that we can lay the groundwork for a more lasting solution to the problems that plague the climate change pages. So, from that perspective, do you agree that the principles I have identified are representative of commonly expressed community standards, norms, and practices, or not? I should think that these are entirely uncontroversial, but if you are reluctant to agree with these principles I should think that we had better tease out why as this is likely part of the underlying disagreement between the two of us, and more importantly this may also point to part of the underlying problems within the larger community. We should always be mindful of the larger picture, no? --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Unless you start arguing against full civil rights for Turing-compliant artificial sentiences, I really could not care less about your PoV. It matters when tendentious editing crosses the line into disruptive editing, but is otherwise immaterial for the probation and for administrator actions in general. I especially do not want to get into a situation where neutral enforcement (people who are disruptive in much the same way receive much the same treatment) into so-called balanced enforcement (if you ban one from that side, you must also ban one from the other). That way lies madness. I promised in my RfA that I would strive to use these buttons in the service of the community, not at the direction of any non-neutral party. The local behavioural norms in climate change are part of the reason that the probation was established. While some people have taken the hint (thank you to any of you reading this), the editing environment as a whole is still a long way from acceptable. As a volunteer project, there is unfortunately a vast divide between what the community would prefer and how far it is willing to go in enforcing that desire. Most people would rather spend their hobby-time more pleasantly, which leads to a knock-on effect as more of the more reasonable editors drift away, selecting for the most passionate and entrenched. This loss of ideas and bimodalization of the distribution is a good part of why I care enough to add my voice to encouraging the editors in the topic area to bring themselves more in line with the ideals of the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Your phrasing in the above statement makes it difficult to parse and so it is difficult to accurately and confidently discern your meaning. If I understand this statement correctly I believe that you are arguing that neutral enforcement is the proper standard of application and that balanced enforcement should be rejected. Is this a correct interpretation of your position? If not, please clarify. Assuming that this interpretation is correct we are in complete agreement that neutrality of enforcement is the order of the day, where this basically means "people who are disruptive in much the same way receive much the same treatment". I believe that the principles I expressed above constitute the very essence of neutral enforcement. I would argue that my own behavior is basically on par with the current community norms as exemplified by editors with long established editing records, who have demonstrated a familiarity with the applicable policies, and who not only have visible support from within the community at large but from within the administrative community as well. To establish this fact I offer up three timely exemplars of such editors: User:William M. Connolley, User:Tony Sidaway, and User:Enric Naval. I contend that these three editors have all engaged in behavior which is basically on par with my own, that they have a demonstrable pattern of engaging in that behavior, and that their behavior is considered to be within acceptable community standards. So, unless a credible argument can be made for how my behavior far exceeds that of these editors my behavior too should be viewed as being within acceptable community standards and under a standard of neutral enforcement I should only be given sanctions on par with those imposed on these editors, if any. On the charge of civility violations, there have been many recent discussions at climate change enforcement regarding the behavior of User:William M. Connolley. In several of those cases you, yourself, closed the requests with no action. In one such request you restricted him from editing others comments. I submit that this demonstrates that the behavior of this editor lies within accepted community norms, so unless my own behavior lies far in excess of that demonstrated by WMC in those requests the principle of neutral enforcement would require you to impose on me a set of sanctions of comparable severity. I argue that there is a vast difference between how you have treated me and how you have treated WMC. In my case you have unilaterally imposed a full on community ban against me (which is exactly what an indefinite block is when the general sanctions forbid other administrators from over-riding your decision and unblocking me without your permission). In the case of WMC you have required him to refrain from editing people's comments for 6 months. So, under the banner of neutral enforcement, either indefinitely block WMC for his civility violations as documented at the climate change enforcement requests OR impose a comparable sanction on me and unblock me. On the charge of disrupting banning discussions and other important community discussions as AN, ANI, or similar venues I assert that both User:Tony Sidaway and User:Enric Naval have been equally disruptive at these venues as anything that I have done. Both continually insert their own comments throughout the entire discussion in an attempt to, as some would say, overwhelm the opinions of others. I believe that this is the substance of the charges against me. In addition TS makes a habit of editing the comments of others without their permission and in the recent discussion of my current block he managed to edit the comments of almost every poster in that discussion. I would argue that this act far exceeds anything I have done. Neither of these editors has received any sanctions whatsoever for their behavior, nor have they even received any warnings, so I argue that these facts are prima facie evidence that their behavior lies within accepted community norms. So, unless my behavior and level of purported disruption far exceeds that of these two editors the principle of neutral enforcement would require that I receive comparable sanctions to theirs. So, under the banner of neutral enforcement, either indefinitely block TS and EN for their disruption of community discussions (diffs available upon request) OR impose a comparable sanction on me (i.e. none) and unblock me. If you believe that my own behavior far exceeds the behavior of these exemplars of accepted community behavioral norms, please provide a suitably detailed explanation of precisely how my behavior exceeds theirs along with supporting evidence. Barring such a demonstration of the justification for your actions, kindly undo them and let me be. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC) P.S. and just to head off the inevitable mischaracterization of this argument that will inevitably ensue (from people other than 2/0 I would assume), this is NOT, I repeat NOT, an argument that bad behavior on the part of others somehow justifies bad behavior by me. It is an argument that says comparable behavior is treated comparably in accordance with neutral enforcement, and that if their behavior is considered acceptable by community norms so should mine be. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Enforcement should strive to be neutral rather than playing to a false sense of balance, yes. I think I lost a word in the above - sorry about that. True Neutral is, in all humility, likely an impossible standard to actually achieve, but even the attempt is worth the effort. Part of this effort is that, while I maintain a commented partial list of involved editors, my active monitoring of the probation area is performed on a per article basis or via recent changes (Global warming and Scientific opinion on climate change usually make the short list, Biochar and Fossil fuel phase out not so much). I would be frankly flabbergasted to discover that I had found and addressed every probation-relevant edit on any given day; assuming a normal distribution in the PoVs of problematic edits across the articles any given admin happens to see and hours during which they are active, this source of bias should cancel out in aggregate. Accepting that edits and patterns will be missed, similar situations should be treated similarly - any editor who breaks 1RR on an article where it is imposed and does not self-revert should be treated according to best practices exhibited at WP:AN3. Balance might require that anyone else reverting also be blocked, but in practice it is only necessary to check their recent contributions for worrisome patterns, such as baiting or editing against talkpage consensus. If two or more editors all violate such a sanction, though, neutrality likely requires that they all be removed or given the same warning. The degree of parallelism between any two cases decreases with complexity. Unless your diffs are fairly recent, I doubt that they would be actionable; I would also have moral qualms to acting on them, as it would violate the above-expressed principle of seeking unbiased information filters. Further, I am not interested in discussing any other editors; if you would like to speak with them, your email remains enabled or you may request that I or another of the 67 people watching this page bring a matter to their attention. As a matter of completeness, there have been 6 threads at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement mentioning or substantially about User:William M. Connolley: one was closed by Jehochman; the next was malformed, and closed by me after a suitable discussion period during which issues could be raised less formally; then there is a discussion that I skipped almost entirely; next I merged two reports so we could more closely match the number of discussions to the number of issues (though as I acknowledged recently, there was some confusion following that); there followed by the section I closed by barring WMC from most refactoring and warning him against using derogatory terms; last there is the thread closed by Prodego wherein I bare and comment on WMC's recent edits. But that is for there, not for here. The above post, if you will forgive my cynicism, sounds remarkably like a statement of intention to proceed exactly as before should you be unblocked without condition. It even demonstrates some of the very tendencies I outlined in my original blocking statement. As has previously been expressed at great length by many parties, this is not acceptable. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Collapse and respond to Crohnie GoRight I have a suggestion that you can take or leave, but it might help resolve this for you. Instead of the complicated comments like above, just state specifically what changes you will take to prevent administrators and other editors from getting frustrated with you like has apparently happened. I mean, just make a list in bullet points saying what you will change if you are allowed to return to editing. An example would be; I will no longer Wikilawyer about edits. I will not involve myself in issues that are not about me, etc. This way there is a specific layout of what you will do to change your habits. Please note that my two examples are not representative of anything in specific, they are just examples of how to lay things out. Good luck, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your well meaning suggestion. I am aware that things could be expedited if I simply gave 2/0 what he wanted, but off-wiki in email when this all began he expressed an interest in "getting this right the first time." I agree and to do so requires a common understanding of the principles involved and how they should be applied in this case. Discussion and clear mutual understanding should go a long way to preventing future problems which are derived fundamentally from misunderstandings. I would also argue that there are more important things at stake here than simply my getting unblocked. I would argue that my case represents (as well as anyone's does) a microcosm of the larger problems on the climate change pages and so a detailed understanding of my case may shed so valuable light and insight onto the larger picture. So my extended discussion here has a larger purpose than merely my own selfish predicament. I should hope that 2/0 would recognize this and see this for the opportunity that it is in terms of making substantial inroads into achieving the collegial atmosphere that he says that he wants to engender, and to that end that he would seek to engage this discussion in a more timely manner than he has thus far. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC) "The degree of parallelism between any two cases decreases with complexity. Unless your diffs are fairly recent, I doubt that they would be actionable; I would also have moral qualms to acting on them, as it would violate the above-expressed principle of seeking unbiased information filters. Further, I am not interested in discussing any other editors; if you would like to speak with them, your email remains enabled or you may request that I or another of the 67 people watching this page bring a matter to their attention." This does tend to hamper any discussion of the neutrality of your enforcement and suggests an unwillingness to work together to find a fair and amicable resolution. I find this troubling. Is there, perhaps, a neutral party that you trust that we might engage as a mediator in this dispute? --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC) "The above post, if you will forgive my cynicism, sounds remarkably like a statement of intention to proceed exactly as before should you be unblocked without condition. It even demonstrates some of the very tendencies I outlined in my original blocking statement. As has previously been expressed at great length by many parties, this is not acceptable." Actually, if you go back and read that post again with a clear and unbiased head I think that you will see that it is NOT an argument that I should be unblocked without condition. Rather it is an argument that I should be either (a) given sanctions appropriate to the established community standards and norms as demonstrably established by the exemplars I cited, or (b) that others who have behaved similarly to myself also be given the sanctions that you have imposed on me (which currently stands at an indefinite block without the possibility to be unblocked by anyone without your sole permission). I am perfectly willing to accept any sanctions you mete out as long as they are consistent with the principle of neutral enforcement (and, therefore, consistent with the sanctions and restrictions imposed on others who act substantially similar to myself). Arguing that you happened upon me via unbiased information sources is all well and good, but it does not remove your obligation to ensure that your enforcement actions are neutral in and of themselves independent of your methods of detection. Regardless of how you came to decide that my behavior is problematic, you cannot simply ignore substantially similar behaviors on the part of others once they have been brought to your attention. To do so completely flies in the face of neutral enforcement, as opposed to neutral detection. The two are not synonymous. In other words, once a particular style of type of behavior has been labeled as either accepted or problematic, you are bound by neutral enforcement to mete out comparable sanctions to ALL editors equally who engage in those behaviors whenever you become aware of them and through whatever means. You cannot use the claim of using unbiased methods of detection as a shield to justify action in some cases and inaction in others. This is clearly counter to the very spirit of neutral enforcement. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's cut to the chase. I have expressed my concerns with your proposed framework below and asked you to consider alternatives for the reasons stated. My arguments either sway you, or they do not. So there seems to be little more to discuss at this point and, indeed, you seem to be busy with other things anyway. If it is your intent for this block to be an indefinite community ban please state so explicitly, otherwise please issue your sanctions and unblock me so that I might find something useful to do for the project. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) NOTE: I reserve the right to appeal any sanctions which are not in line with the doctrine of neutral enforcement.

Discussion of your framework

Let's spend a little time discussing the specifics of your proposed framework.

Civility

"Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive."

This is actually an easy one to address and since I do not wish to be viewed as uncivil I will voluntarily suggest something that would actually have a demonstrable impact (unlike some of the other sanctions you have imposed in this area recently). I offer the following:

For a period of 3 months commencing on the date and time of my current block, I hereby grant free license to any editor who believes that I have been uncivil to minimally remove or redact anything I post that they object to on the grounds of civility. I shall be barred from reinstating the material either verbatim or via trivial rewordings which yield substantially the same meanings and shall be blocked for an appropriate time limited duration by any uninvolved and neutral administrator at their sole discretion should I violate this provision. Good faith refactorings and rewordings to remove the incivility shall not be considered violations. Any abuses of these provisions by other editors or blocking administrators may be appealed to WP:AN at my discretion.

--GoRight (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change topic ban

"Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption."

You indicate that it is not your intent to ban my POV, yet the primary effect of this proposal would be to do just that for the period during which it is in effect. I shall note that the subject of a topic ban from climate change articles for me has come up on many occasions thanks to Raul654's attempts to gain just that. In all such cases the community explicitly rejected those attempts. Further, regarding your current block the discussion which ensued also failed to provide a consensus for this block (which amounts to a full community ban at this point since the general sanctions prohibit any other administrator from overturning your block).

I am unclear on what other behavior you are seeking to restrict with this proposal so I am unable to propose a suitable sanction which specifically focuses on that behavior. If you could be more specific I could offer a proposal. I must reject your current proposal, however, as being excessive owing to its unintended consequence of banning my POV from the climate change articles. Please either abandon this aspect of your framework or propose a more suitable sanction which focuses on the problem behavior without banning my POV. --GoRight (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban on participation on community discussions

"Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution."

Unless it is your intent to turn me into a second class member of this community, I must reject this current proposal as being excessive because it removes my voice from community discussions of significant import. The fact that I make myself familiar with the details and the facts of the discussions I engage in should be applauded, not punished. Please either abandon this aspect of your framework or propose a more suitable sanction which focuses on the problem behavior without affecting my ability to have a say in community decisions. --GoRight (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for appearing to ignore your case for so long. Every time I try to draft a reply, it just comes out wrong. I am tired of talking past each other - you deserve better than that. I think the time has come to admit that I have reached the limit of my sociocognitive abilities, and move on. Whether I am failing to communicate to you or failing to understand you or however the disjoint is distributed, we always seem to be discussing two entirely different situations.
If, based on a review of the history leading up to and full discussions following this block, another admin would like to establish a framework for lifting this block, I would not object. If, based on a review of the history leading up to and full discussions following this block, no other admin is willing to lift this block, I would not object. I remain free for discussion, but I seem to be doing no good here. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Peanut gallery commentary ...

RE: [1] discussion including Hipocrite.

[Jumps up and down anxiously, pointing] Oh! Oh! Look, 2/0, look! Hipocrite is talking in thinly veiled terms to antagonize his fellow editors. Surely this will degrade to ability of our little part of the project to attract neutral editors. Please act quickly on this matter so that it remains actionable and please be sure to apply the principles of neutral enforcement regarding editors who antagonize others. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Hipocrite is watching. By way of explanation I remind everyone of the following comments from 2/0:

• [2] wherein he asserted that "antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere", and
• [3] wherein he stated that "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.".

I am not the only editor that found his comments to be thinly veiled sarcasm and condescension. Indeed, despite his proclamations to the contrary I remain unconvinced. This appears to be a violation of WP:POINT in any case, something else that 2/0 has accused me of in his diffs. By pointing out H's transgressions in this respect I am seeking to foster a more collegial atmosphere in precisely the same way that 2/0 is. --GoRight (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: [4] by Hipocrite.

"Negatively characterizing other's styles of discussion is unlikey to foster a collegial atmosphere. Please don't do it. Hipocrite (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)"

Excellent advice, H. Please convey this to 2/0 regarding his justification for my current block.

Also, I truly consider imitation ("... is unlikey to foster a collegial atmosphere. Please don't do it.") to be the sincerest form of flattery ("... refactor his comment to remove the obvious invective which is not congruent with promoting a collegial atmosphere."). I'm glad you've decided to follow my example.

--GoRight (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this commentary helpful? I don't see sniping at Hipocrite as a good approach. I think, rather, that reaching out to reasonable people is a better approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect I agree. I apologize to Hipocrite for making these comments. I mistook Hipocrite's sincere efforts to reach out as being sarcasm which is a failure to WP:AGF on my part based on prior history and the prevailing attitudes in this space. If Hipocrite is sincere in his desire to foster a more collegial atmosphere within the climate change articles I shall endeavor to work with him in that spirit. Let us be the first two to extend our olive branches in good faith and to help lead by example by putting the past behind us and instead looking to the future. --GoRight (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept your apology. Hipocrite (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Still blocked?

I wonder if this is how Scibaby was born. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've wondered this too ... However, Scibaby seems to appreciate the technical evasion now and doesn't appear interested in defending bitten newcomers. If Scibaby were to defend the innocent folks charged with socking, then maybe the challenge would be up and Scibaby would have better redeeming qualities. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking conditions

I have been watching this silently since the actual block took place and I have decided that, in accordance with 2/0's request for another admin's intervention, that I'm willing to unblock you... conditionally. The unblock will be contingent upon agreement by both the blocked editor and the blocking admin. I'm not willing to be drawn into this debacle, so there will be no negotiation on the terms, it's either accept it or hope for a better deal from another admin.

Civility

The editor will be placed on a three month civility probation. During this time, any breaches of WP:CIVIL will result in a warning, then a block. The block will be issued only by an uninvolved administrator, and will extend up to and including the length of the original block. This is only for clear and obvious breaches of civility; we all fly off the handle every once in a while, and I find many of the "civility breaches" quoted in the original block to be weak and nit-picky. Suggesting someone is editing in bad faith is not, by itself, a civility issue. Telling someone who disagrees with you to blow it out their ass is. The editor is also instructed to be mindful of disruptive behaviors and abuse of WP:POINT, as that this tends to be the precursor to most of their editing disputes.

Climate Change Topic Ban

For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is related to the climate change article probation. The user may participate on the talk pages during this time provided they adhere to the civility probation above and are conscious to avoid disruption. Failure to comply with this will result in a warning then a full topic ban for the remainder of the three months as issued by an uninvolved admin.

Moving forward

I didn't address 2/0's wishes that there be language preventing you from taking part in community discussion, as I see that as being unnecessarily punitive. I feel that the civility probation and instructions to avoid disruption are satisfactory in moderating GoRight's behavior in this respect. Should these conditions be adhered to for the three months, I suggest a review and reappraisal of the situation. Should myself or another uninvolved admin decide that the editor has fulfilled these terms, they will be released from editing restrictions. Failure to follow these instructions may result in reapplication of 2/0's original block.

I will unblock if these terms are accepted by both parties. Trusilver 09:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I accept. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but these are conditions that completely miss the point of the original disruption. GoRight is rarely if ever "obviously" uncivil. See WP:Civil POV pushing. He also, by now, rarely makes problematic edits directly in article space. Instead, he causes significant waste of time and disruption by nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it on talk pages and in dispute resolution. If you want a meaningful restriction, ban him from climate change talk pages, and from noticeboard discussion and dispute resolution where he is not one of the primary involved parties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of that ("nit-picking, lawyering, and not getting it") going around in this topic area. Do we apply similar strictures to everyone in the topic area who does that? It's a tempting idea. (I was asked to look at this page via a message on my talk)... that said I don't see Trusilver's suggested terms as unreasonable, and they may well work. If not, we can keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 14:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As I had pointed out, I'm not negotiating terms. After a long, long review of the editor's contributions, this is the compromise I have drawn up. If it's acceptable to both GoRight and 2/0, then we will see how it works. If it's not, it's not, but this isn't RFC and I'm not taking question and answer sessions from the peanut gallery. If he violates the terms, he gets reblocked (period/full stop). I appreciate everyone's opinions, but we have been doing this crap for 10 days, it's time to make a decision... one way or the other. Trusilver 15:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Under your terms, 2/0 is a uninvolved admin, correct? Verbal chat

Considering the history between the editor and 2/0, I would really appreciate if he would defer to another admin as far as this individual goes. But generally speaking, 2/0 is one of the more neutral admins dealing with the climate change articles. Also, since I made this proposal, if it is accepted I will be watching pretty much every edit that that GoRight makes. Trusilver 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver: In case it wasn't clear, I was expressing support for your terms and your offer. I'll follow that with thanks for stepping up and making it in the first place, and for the effort you'll expend in "watching pretty much every edit that that GoRight makes" (i htink the "peanut gallery" is allowed to applaud, are they not?) ++Lar: t/c 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Clap clap clap :) mark nutley (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hah, sorry. I wasn't making any insinuation by that comment other than to state that I'm not going to let this turn into a long debate over whether or not the compromise I came up with is acceptable. It either is or it isn't. I'd like to think that ten days of being blocked will make GoRight give some serious consideration to how he interacts with others, that paired with the fact that (looking over the community sentiment toward him) there will very likely not be any more chances after this one. Trusilver 21:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's been almost 20 days now - he was blocked on 1/16. Not that it changes anything, just clarifying. And I echo Lar's commendation for stepping up here. ATren (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, if so-called "nitpicking and lawyering" is the standard, I can think of at least one other editor who should be banned. This appears to be yet another example of what's good for the proponent isn't good for the skeptic. And, BTW, "Civil POV Pushing" is not policy, and it's not even guideline. It's an essay written by a partisan individual whose idea of balance was to checkuser anyone who disagreed with him. See also this. ATren (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: [5]. This was my understanding so I have no objection to any clarification you wish to make. --GoRight (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we are dotting i's ... you might wish to clarify this sentence: "The block will be issued only by an uninvolved administrator, and will extend up to and including the length of the original block." I think "the length of the original block" in this context is unclear. Does this mean indefinite? I'm not even quibbling, merely asking for clarification on your meaning. --GoRight (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that the block may be restored up to the original term, which was indefinitely. Trusilver 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that was my assumption but I wanted to verify rather than assume. Verification is always a good policy in my experience. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was blocked and put on ignore for 6 months, I have to say I recommend it for others. A few weeks is not time enough for the issues to sink in. GoRight should go do something right elsewhere and ask again in 6 months per wp:offer. Jack Merridew 21:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why GoRight should be blocked and ignored, he's been left twisting in the wind way too long already. Trusilver has taken a reasoned approach to solving the riddle and I certainly hope 2over0 accepts these terms soon. I take note of Trusilver generous offer to actively monitor the situation which takes one of the best reasons for his continued blockage off the table - namely the amount of volunteer time being expended on one editor. If Trusilver is willing to shoulder that burden, what objection to his unblock remains? JPatterson (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I will repeat my unblock message above: I am going to be WP:BOLD, and WP:AGF. I also keep the right to be considered an "uninvolved administrator" in future dealings. At this point, we have an accepted civility parole, and an accepted topic ban by the editor. We also have an effective mentor. I would suggest that transgressions during that period would more likely lead to a more formal ban, rather than a simple indef. I would also suggest that contraventions after the specified period would bring us right back to where we are now. This conditional unblock is not permission to wait a few months and then return to negative patterns of editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I shall honor the restrictions which have been placed upon me. I shall also endeavor to make good on my pledges as well moving forward, recognizing however that I am only human and may fall short of perfection on rare occasions. I acknowledge your uninvolved status moving forward, which is consistent with the conditions set forth in the climate change probation and, more importantly, because I truly view you as being uninvolved.

I want to also thank Trusilver for his assistance in this matter and his good faith attempts to intervene on my behalf. I believe his suggestions struck a reasonable balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the individual.

To Viridae who unblocked me earlier and likely feels as though I betrayed his trust I wish to offer a sincere apology for having done so. He can rest assured that his efforts will have played as much a role in any transformation of my behavior as this current episode has.

I want to also thank Lar who supported this action in spite of our earlier rocky interactions and I shall endeavor to take his lead and support his efforts to get people to reach across the current chasm of distrust for the betterment of the project.

--GoRight (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

hooray your free :) Quick question, the article i am working on, is it procedure to do an RFC on it? I would like to avoid unpleasantness if i move it straight to main space :) mark nutley (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

The agreed upon editing restrictions have been recorded. They are currently updated as follows:

User	Type	Sanction (quoted verbatim)	Special Enforcement Details	Expiration Date
GoRight	Topic ban.	GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley.	Community sanction imposed at this discussion - no further details given	Indefinite Community sanction
	Civility Restriction	GoRight is required to maintain civility and cautioned against disruptive and pointy behavior. Failure to adhere to this restriction will result in first a warning and then successive blocks up to and including his original (indefinite) block. All warnings and blocks will be applied by a neutral, uninvolved administrator.	Sanction imposed from this discussion.	Sanction will be reviewed by one or more uninvolved administrators on or after 2010-05-06
	Topic Restriction	UseRight is to refrain from posting to any article related to the general climate change probation, broadly construed. He is permitted to take part in talk page discussions provided he carefully adheres to the civility restriction above. Failure to adhere to this restriction will result in first a warning and then successive blocks up to and including his original (indefinite) block. All warnings and blocks will be applied by a neutral, uninvolved administrator.

GoRight, I think you have good intentions, and I look forward to seeing good results from these sanctions. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask me. Trusilver 03:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a problem with my helping others in their user space?

RE: [6]. Is anyone going to complain if I help other users with CC related works in progress while they are in that user's own user space? Obviously if they ever get moved into article space they immediately become off limits during my probation.

Please speak up now if you have any sort of issue with my helping other editors like Mark.

I guess the more generic question is whether "climate change articles, broadly construed" includes works in progress in an editor's user space? --GoRight (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well Trusilver says it`s ok and he`s the guy watching you, i see no problems with helping when asked to do so on a wip mark nutley (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am soliciting input from the community so I specifically invite Tony Sidaway to speak his mind in this section. --GoRight (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's within the spirit of the restrictions - you are allowed to contribute on talk pages, so I don't see why that would be different for contributions in user space, as long as this is not misused. As I've stated above, I also think your restrictions miss the point. I'd really prefer it if you would apply you undoubted intelligence and energy to some very different task for a while (and I don't mean worthy but trivial recent changes patrol), but that is only a suggestion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I will find some other things to do. Helping out at BLP/N (for non-CC BLPs) has been suggested as a possibility. I am considering DYK or something like that. And to answer Tony's now deleted comment, I am taking the restrictions seriously which is why I am asking the question. Mark is asking for my help in his user space. That's not me trying to game anything.

Yes, per the restrictions I could restrict my assistance to comments on the talk page of his work in progress, and maybe that would be the best approach just to avoid controversy, but for the sake of rewording or refactoring something on the article itself this would be very inefficient.

Despite the fact that Trusilver thought that it would be acceptable I anticipated that others might not agree, and so I asked, and obviously it is good that I did. I specifically want to AVOID being pointy. --GoRight (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is reminiscent of the "boundary testing" which has characterized many complaints about your editing before. Banned from editing articles related to a topic, it doesn't seem to make sense to seek another way of contributing content to that topic. I agree with Stephan that a clean break, in another non-trivial content area, would be better. You would show yourself for the asset to Wikipedia you truly are, and the hope is that if you returned to the area of climate change you would have acquired good habits that would prevent a resumption of your old, problematic methods.

I would leave the choice up to you, but your interest in science suggests a number of subjects that have no related public controversies. --TS 15:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your input. I agree with the spirit of it and do plan to act on it in some fashion. --GoRight (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Now, in the spirit of helping to build better and more amicable relationships I have a meta request for you: please take a moment to reflect on how a statement like "I think your suggestion is reminiscent of the "boundary testing" which has characterized many complaints about your editing before" is likely to be received under these circumstances and consider whether this was really an important part of the message you wanted to convey and/or whether some alternative phrasing might be more effective in the future.

I agree with Tony about the content issue. BLP/N has been used as a rather crude hammer in content conflicts. I'd rather see you invest into the actual encyclopedic content. As an example, Cosmology might be interesting (and has new stuff coming out regularly). Or go through category:Galaxies and try to dig up stuff on the obscurer ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephan, that is a good suggestion. --GoRight (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am soliciting input from the community so I specifically invite Tony Sidaway to speak his mind in this section is slightly odd - TS isn't the community. You have, in the past, asserted a strong desire to do more RC patrol. This would be an excellent idea and demonstrate willingness to help the Common Good in a non-controversial fashion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the edit history. I was merely telling Tony, who had commented and then deleted it, that since I was soliciting input from the community, of which he is a part, that I welcomed his input in this section. Clearer now? --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that CC partisans like WMC and Schulz should stop commenting here. Trusilver is a true uninvolved and I think he should be allowed to counsel GR without goading input from those he's had past conflicts with. ATren (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is quite convenient. First thing I do is to see what Misters Connoley, Schulz and Kim Petersen recently posted and get the good view of CC controversy. This is how I found your post :) BTW, I admire the persistence of this AGW trio, they fight bravely to the bitter end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.189.3 (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiment, ATren, but I was seeking the community's input and these are, in fact, the editors that I expected to respond. I don't take their comments a goading, per se, but I did want to get their positions out in the open, hence my request. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Atren, GR doesn't need you to "defend" him, nor are you being helpful: GR: you'll recall your interest in RC patrol; I do hope you keep it up. I think people would trust you somewhat more if you did 2-3 weeks of solid work there *before* heading back into controversial areas William M. Connolley (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. I was thinking the same thing. While I will do some solid RCP work in that timeframe I agree with both SS and Tony that I should also endeavor to contribute some content in other areas as well ... even beyond the initial 2-3 weeks you mention. In other words I should seek to become less of an SPA overall going forward. This message has not been lost on me. --GoRight (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be a stretch to say editing in a user space is causing a disruption. You should have the users consent of course. Seems like a beneficial opportunity to me. However, folks would like to see you take some further vacation. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that despite GoRight's past issues, he IS being given another chance. It would be helpful if the background noise could be kept down to a bare minimum. I understand everyone's skepticism, but how about we wait until after GoRight violates his editing restrictions before busting out the pitchforks, shall we? There are no unspoken, hidden qualifiers to his restrictions. If he is capable of editing in the climate change talk pages without breaking his restrictions, then fine. If he feels that it would be a good idea to stay away from them for a little while (which is not a bad idea) then that's fine also. This user's continued presence on Wikipedia is entirely on his own shoulders now, there's no need to create a good 'ol fashioned WP:ANI-style witch burning before he's even had a chance to screw up. Everyone. Please. Chill. Trusilver 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Trusilver. I agree with would be good not to even approach the line drawn in the sanctions for some time. Please note, however, that this section is one small part of my trying to make good on my pledge to try and foster a more collegial atmosphere. The first step is honest and open communications such as we are having here. Letting people speak their minds freely should help to ease any underlying tensions at least to some small degree. --GoRight (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

This is my alternate account which I use from a cellphone. I do appreciate your wish to test likely responses before starting out again. I would do the same in your shoes and I apologise for my hasty and now deleted first response, which was pure kneejerk and precisely the kind of thing I want us all to learn to avoid.

But I do want to see a sign that you recognise that your considerable talents would be appreciated much more in other parts of Wikipedia. Climate Change will still be here when you get back. What worries me most is that, like so many of the topic-banned, you could spend the entire period on the fringes, without really considering that others are just waiting for you to demonstrate your versatility and talent, and your ability to move on and reinvent your style of engagement. I know you can do it. I'm counting on it. Again, thanks for asking for input. --Tasty monster 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU hacking incident article name

Current Proposal

We the undersigned would like to propose the following name change for the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article:

Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

This proposal has come about as a result of good-faith discussions by editors who have expressed differing opinions on the subject but have nonetheless come together to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Our reasons are as follows:

1. The constant renaming proposals are unproductive and ultimately a drain on people's time.
2. It is clear that few if any people want the current name.
3. Coming to an amicable compromise is in the best interests of the project, overall.

We believe that this proposal has the following benefits:

1. It avoids the use of "Climategate", which is strongly opposed by many editors, is deprecated by current policies and is inconsistent with Wikipedia's usual approach to such issues.
2. The redirect from Climategate will still be in place for users searching for that name.
3. It avoids the use of "stolen", "hack" or "data" to which editors objected on various grounds.
4. It follows a well established project convention in the naming of X-gate type articles: namely the X-gate is a redirect to an article which is descriptively named after its subject matter (e.g. Rathergate → Killian documents controversy, Attorneygate → Dismissal of US Attorneys controversy, Whitewatergate → Whitewater controversy etc).
5. It is a middle ground proposal that requires everyone to give a little and noone walks away with everything they wanted (i.e. it really is a compromise).
6. The inclusion of "email" is obviously needed as this is probably the single most noted and discussed aspect of the whole affair.
7. The inclusion of "documents" is still broad enough to cover other materials (even code) which were released and it is well aligned with the FOI request aspects of the affair.
8. And probably most importantly, "controversy" does not bias the article on one direction or another, thereby meeting NPOV requirements.

Signed,

1. GoRight (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) -- though stylistically I'd prefer removing the "and document", which is a little clumsy. But I'd be fine with any wording that termed it a "controversy", which would nicely encompass both the unauthorized distribution of the emails as well as the content concerns.
4. JPatterson (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
5. ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
8. mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Why not shorten in slightly? CRU e-mail and documents controversy?
9. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
10. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Heyitspeter (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
12. Wikispan (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

"Climate Research Unit email controversy" has been suggested twice before - originally by jheiv back on December 13th [7] and then again by Cla68 on January 2nd in this thread, which is worth reading. I think it's worth proposing as a compromise; the problem is that I don't think the hardliners are willing to compromise. Cla68 in particular now seems to be determined to ignore policy and push for "Climategate". However, I think it's worth proposing all the same, as it might offer those willing to compromise a position with which they can agree. Do you want to go ahead and propose it? Feel free to mention that we have been discussing it (and please ensure that you flag up the fact that it's a compromise proposal). -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who would you list as the hardliners from each side on this issue, and who is the most influential of them? Roughly speaking, of course. I suggest that we test the waters on the pages of those individuals first. If it looks like a no go then there is no need to disrupt the talk page.

I would also suggest trying to line up support from those OPPOSED to "Climategate" and "scandal" first. If they can be shown to support this as a compromise position in good faith then this will put those pushing FOR "Climategate" and/or "scandal" a bit on the defensive. Failing to accept a good faith compromise position which affords both sides some means of "saving face" (i.e. because we are following a convention used elsewhere in multiple places) would certainly make them look like the uncooperative ones, no? So first let us identify those editors that we should contact initially from both sides. Any suggestions? --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'd suggest the following as possibly approachable: OrenO, A Quest For Knowledge, Jpat34721, Hipocrite, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, dave souza, Heyitspeter. The hardliners are currently Nsaa, Cla68, Thepm, Zulu Papa 5, Marknutley. Thegoodlocust was in the hardline camp as well, but since he's been topic-banned he's now irrelevant. I don't suggest approaching Cla68 but when the proposal is made we should point out that he previously proposed "Climate Research Unit email controversy" - it may be possible to dissuade him from voting against his own proposal. What do you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that Sphilbrick and Itsmejudith might be supportive as well. Let me know if you want me to reach out to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of pinging Itsmejudith as well but I don't know Sphilbrick. But if you know them then please do contact them and just point them to the proposal above and this section for discussion. I think it is a reasonable time to try and pull in a few additional people. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with CRU email controversy, but I'm happy to be approached about other alternatives, which I'm also probably fine with. Hipocrite (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, great. Weigh in with your preference to the two options below. --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, let's decide on what we really want to propose then. I had suggested:

Climate Research Unit email controversy

another suitable alternative might be:

Climate Research Unit email and document controversy

Climate Research Unit email and data controversy

I have not been following that page closely but there seems to be some issue of a potential split because of the email/document schism. What's your guess on how that will play out? Although I guess it doesn't matter too much because whatever we pick can be changed again if the split happens. Thoughts? Oh, and what's the convention for the capitalization in these titles? --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Indif/irrelevent to me. I suspect that the discussion will quickly turn to "Climategate is the only acceptable title," brinksmanship, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I still prefer my original suggestion for its simplicity. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S.S. I think I have changed my mind. "Climate Research Unit email and document controversy" offers the broadest appeal, I think. Data was opposed by many. Document is sufficiently broad to cover most other things including the FOI requests. From my perspective the emails and the FOI aspects are the most covered in the media and so the most important to cover in the title. The code, while it is covered, is much less so IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (Sign after the fact)

OK, I think I can live with that. It seems a reasonable compromise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys maybe interested in Scjessey's proposal here[8]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Chris had pointed to that above. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I missed that. But what I meant was to mention Scjessey by name, that he proposed something very similar. He would be unlikely to vote against his own proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a slight misinterpretation of my position. The thread was intended to stimulate discussion, not advocate a specific position. My actual position has evolved somewhat since then anyway. The discussion we had about the lede that eventually brought about a fairly solid consensus evolved because the "Climategate" aspect was redefined as one of the consequences of the incident, rather than the incident itself. It is for this reason that I would have trouble supporting these proposals at this time, because I still see the controversy as a consequence. As an example, consider that the consequence of the 9/11 attacks was the "War on Terror", but nobody would refer to the "War on Terror" as the "9/11 attacks". One avenue that I've been considering is the whole issue of summary style. There's an awful lot of info about this entire incident out there, and so it might be possible to make a good argument for breaking up the article (a process which has been partially begun by the "documents" child article). As long as it was done carefully so as not to create a POV fork, a consequence of moving to summary style would be that an article would necessarily exist that would focus on the email controversy. Anyway, my thoughts on this are very much in the early stages and I'm nowhere near ready to present a formal proposal. In the meantime, I cannot consider support for this proposal. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to misinterpret anything we were merely recognizing that this proposal is in line with something that you had attempted previously. If you have moved on to another approach that is fine. In your estimation does this proposal have no merit? If a large enough number of others sign on would you be willing to support it even if it is not your primary choice just in the interests of downplaying further disruption in this area? In other words, are you adamantly against this or is it an acceptable compromise if you find that you are not able to attain your first choice? --GoRight (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are fair questions, and let me say right now that I am deeply impressed by this commendable effort on your part to try to put past conflict behind you and work in this way. Let me answer each of your questions in turn. First of all, I think any reasonable proposal has merit. This one has been well thought out and proposed in a manner that is least likely to attract conflict; however, I feel that better options are available. Secondly, I am a strong supporter of Wikipedia's consensus approach and I won't be standing in the way of it just because I disagree; however, this proposal has zero chance of succeeding unless it is actually put forward on the article talk page and given an independent set of responses (copy and pasting "supports" from here would not be acceptable). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's just see if we can gain some support here first. Obviously any rename proposal has to be vetted on the talk page, I completely agree and the intent was always to do so. The reason for discussing here first is to gauge whether the support is strong enough to to even warrant disrupting the talk page with another proposal. I'm not sure if I agree with the copy/paste comment but even so people who sign are pledging to support and defend the proposal so having them sign again on the talk page should be a formality at best. --GoRight (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think a proposal that takes advantage of WP:SS is going to be more successful though. Child articles on the hacking, the contents of the stolen files, the controversy and perhaps the media coverage would essentially side-step the issue of what to call the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I changed to "Climategate" after I started seeing it used in just about every mention on the topic in the media, but I'm willing to accept "Climate Research Unit email controversy" as a compromise. Cla68 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  If you are willing to accept and defend the above proposal please consider signing it above. Same for AQFK. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a relatively uninvolved editor (currently at least a very infrequent editor to the climate change related articles, although I have been following some of the recent kerfuffle), I think that this change is a good idea, particularly as a sign of cooperation. Hal peridol (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the people signing this proposal didn't vote in support of a name change on the article talkpage. Does cognitive dissonance hurt or is it more like a kind of tingling sensation? Still, however this gets off the ground is good with me.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your email

The answer to your mail is "I think you should concentrate on the substance of your parole" William M. Connolley (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)