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Historical References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 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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

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

Notes:

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

Administrator use only:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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)