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Historical References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 3

Back Pointer 4

Back Pointer 5

Raul's Attack Page

• User:Raul654/GoRight
• Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Raul654/GoRight

My Response Page

• User:GoRight/Raul654

Users Requesting to be Informed of Topics of Interest

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

• User:Abd
• User:John G. Miles

December 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 55 hours for disruption on Scientific opinion on climate change article. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. tedder (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Involvment" checker

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

WVBluefield

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pete"

User:MastCell and User:Dougweller are also aware of an evidence summary. I left a message asking them to chime in with their opinions and impressions.[1][2]

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

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

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

Blocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flickr and BLP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoRight is a Wiki Hero

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documenting Standard Climate Change Arguments.

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

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

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

Blocked (2)

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)

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

I believe that my edits over the past day and a half speak for themselves in refutation to the picture you are wanting to paint here. I could address each of these points individually, and may be forced to do so in due time, but this would only feed the perceptions of wikilawyering that I assume are being bolstered here. Raising good faith concerns about things that I perceive as being injustices in a public forum which is precisely where I am expected to raise them cannot possibly be considered a blocking offense. Nor was I the only on voicing those same concerns so I fail to understand why I am being singled out in this case. JzG raised most of these issues in a timely fashion at [3] which decidedly shows no consensus for your action, so I find the timing of this block some days later curious.

You complain that I am wasting people's time but after more than a day and a half of either nothing but silence or Recent Change Patrol on my part you call for yet more discussion of the issues, [4]. Do you consider this block to be preventative or punitive? I mean are you actually seeking to prevent me from performing more Recent Change Patrols which is all I have done for the past day and a half? What is the imminent danger to the project in that?

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

Why are you blaming, [5], this thread, [6], on me? I didn't start it. --GoRight (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|I invite any reviewing administrator to look at the diffs provided above in context before passing judgment. I also wish them to take into consideration that the majority of these examples come from two threads at [[WP:AN]] only one of which I started. Since the one that I started was closed by a neutral administrator I have essentially moved on as my contributions will demonstrate if you review my edits since that time. Indeed, for the past day and a half I either stayed away or was conducting recent change patrol which I believe is considered a useful contribution to the community. The only thing that I can see this block preventing at this point seems to be more recent change patrol activity which would seem to be a detriment to the project. I'm trying to move on but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An#GoRight first JzG] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An#GoRight_Blocked now 2/0] keeps dragging me back into the whole mess. Thank you for your consideration.}}

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

A dialogue with 2/0

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

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

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

Collapse side discussion to keep this section clean.

If someone would be so good as to convey this link, [7], to 2/0's talk page so that he might be alerted to this section the next time he edits it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I'll pass this along for you GoRight, be well. --CrohnieGalTalk 18:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Have you thought of archiving recently? --CrohnieGalTalk 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Crohnie. Since I seem to have plenty of time on my hands clearing out the talk page would be useful and helpful to you in particular as I recall. --GoRight (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Got a new computer a little after surgery but now I know how it feels for others. :) --CrohnieGalTalk 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Collapse to save vertical space.

Context for Diffs Diff 2/0 GoRight [8] accusation of gross misconduct outside of a dispute resolution process There is no accusation of misconduct here. Not even an implied one. I state that KDP is a master at using WP:WEIGHT and he is. He uses it quite effectively. That I and others feel that his use of it in the context of GW BLPs results in a double standard on those articles is merely our opinion on the topic. I don't claim any misconduct on KDP's part, I am merely stating my opinion that his rationale for relying on WP:WEIGHT in this and other instances is in conflict with the spirit of WP:NPOV. That is NOT and accusation of anything. [9] accusation of perfidy For those such as myself who do not even know what perfidy means, see [10]. This comment was only made after many, many repetitious comments by KDP raising the exact same point on multiple articles even after multiple other editors had rejected it. I was merely trying to break the cycle of tit for tat so that we could move onto something constructive in the conversation. [11] needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion Perhaps not the best way to stating it, but this comment only expresses my opinion that another editor had raised a good point. I sought to be succinct after being informed that I was wasting people's time with longer and more deliberative posts. This appears to be a case of I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don't speak precisely. Is this really a blocking offense? [12] sarcasm and accusation of bad faith I stand by my comment on this one. The editor in question was repeatedly WP:BITEing a newbie editor without justification. Read that thread in context, [13]. [14] violation of WP:POINT Please. This is a comment on a user page and clearly outside the scope of WP:POINT. It was merely a joke (note the smiley) after the admin in question had first indefinitely blocked a user and then reduced the block to the equivalent of a 24 hour block. The indefinite block was clearly overkill and hence the reference to the use of a "big stick". YMMV on whether it was funny, I guess. [15] accusation of partiality and collusion Accusation? Who am I accusing? This comment is merely remarking on a number of cases wherein interaction bans with respect to WMC are being proposed and/or enacted, both in that discussion and at climate change enforcement. Such bans do form a wall around WMC, but it should be noted that if multiple such bans are required perhaps there is a common cause? [16] 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) More from this thread: [17] [18] inflaming an already passionate discussion Calling someone your good friend and asking them to review WP:AGF is inflaming the discussion? People get asked to assume good faith all the time. What makes this one noteworthy and why is it being singled out? [19] unproductive sarcasm I'll stand by this comment as well. The page is being called a hate filled attack page when the sum total of the reference to Al Gore is as I indicated. He is called a former US Vice President, reference to his Nobel Peace Prize is made, and he is referred to as a crusader for AGW (which is clearly true and he is proud of it). Where's the hate? [20] uncivil insinuation Again, please. 2/0 complains of an insinuation on my part and completely ignores the comment that I am actually quoting directly from. Why am I being singled out? Is this really a blockable offense? What is being prevented here in terms of damage to the project? [21] violation of WP:POINT and unevidenced accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter. Read the edit in context, [22]. It was explicitly stated as an illustration of a problem, hence not a true accusation, and the subsequent conversation does, in fact, illustrate the point that it is easy to make bald allegations without evidence and then simply accuse the accused of refusing to accept the allegations. This is exactly what JzG did but 2/0 only seeks to single me out. [23] demand that other users expend their time and effort to your satisfaction First of all, I can't demand or force anyone to do anything. Secondly, asking that allegations be supported by evidence is standard community practice, or at least I thought it was, so this is a problem why? [24] 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 If it's good enough for the US Seante, it's good enough for me. See the explanation 2/0 himself references while disclaiming that any of this matters. [25] incivility This is a valid point which is merely forcefully stated. I am far from the most uncivil of the GW regulars. Why am I being singled out?   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). I can't even follow this one. Let me just summarize things from my perspective. And admin had participated in the ban discussion, then declared the ban himself, then closed the discussion himself. Per standard community practice the discussion is to be closed by an uninvolved person. Since the admin had participated in the ban discussion I viewed it as inappropriate that they be the one to close the discussion and said so. When a neutral party finally closed that discussion, I accepted it as being closed. There was nothing "backhanded" by my acceptance thereof. I do, and did somewhere, acknowledge that while I had dropped the case on the main WP:AN thread that I did respond to some additional comments that appeared on the subpage. Technically a violation of my claim, I suppose, but none of that follow-on discussion was significant or extensive. [26] snide incivility Note that this comment was in reply to [27] and yet 2/0 seeks to single it out. Note also that I had a response to back it up, [28]. This is not blockable behavior, and especially not when I am being harassed on my own talk page. [29] accusation of bad faith Part of that same conversation. Not that this is in response to [30]. If I am being accused of bad faith on my own talk page I feel justified in leveling the exact same charges in return, especially when I can back them up as I did. Read the whole thread in context, [31]. [32] 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. Here's the entire conversation, [33], prior to TS taking it wholly upon himself to completely remove the discussion which I consider to be a fairly provocative act, but I suppose YMMV. TS clearly stated that he knew that Pcarbonn was editting "not for improving Wikipedia, but to advance a personal goal". I am relatively certain that TS is not a mind reader so, it must be that he has some evidence to back up his claim. He has yet to provide any such evidence. [34] accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter This is not an accusation of anything. It is a statement of easily verifiable fact. No detailed discussion of any diffs was over conducted as far as I am aware. If I am wrong, show me and I shall recant. [35] failure to show due diligence. You could easily have contributed productively here by adding the omitted log entry yourself. So, you think I should be indefinitely blocked for pointing out in a discussion that an editor was not warned without going and issuing that warning myself after the fact? That bar seems pretty low here, IMHO.

Comments from the peanut gallery

GoRight has requested to be unblocked so that he can continue his work with RC patrol. I would support an unblock for this purpose if GoRight agrees to stay away from the venues that led to his block. Given that the stated goal of his unblock is to continue with RC patrol this should not be a problem. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"venues" is too ill-specified, as is the required timeframe. I don't wish to be accused of violating promises which I never made, nor do I accept some back door topic ban. But thanks for the thought which was well intentioned. --GoRight (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have read through most of the diff's above. A 24 hour time-out might have been appropriate, but if this block stands then about half of the editors you have had problems with should receive equal treatment. It appears that the real problem is that some people prefer to use their "mailed fist" to control which point of view is presented. A better solution would be to allow some POV forks to exist. In that way, all the back and forth arguing could be directed to producing better articles. To be completely clear, a lot of the problem is caused by the current policies. The purpose of "rules" is to reduce the number of issues, not to make things worse. Q Science (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose such an unblock. A glance through GR's history reveals that the sudden enthusiasm for RC patrol looks more like a token effort than true good faith William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh. It is what it is. Since I began the undertaking (which was prior to most of the flap discussed above) I have probably made more recent change patrol edits than other edits, especially if one discounts any edits related to (a) this block and (b) defending myself at this thread which I did not start. --GoRight (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You're smart, but don't think everybody else is stupid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't call anybody stupid. Like I said, it is what it is. I never said that taking up recent change patrol was a substitute for why I am here. I made that clear on Jehochman's talk page. Still, actions speak louder than words and I have the edits to prove that I was actually putting in the time. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Seeing [36] and [37]. So, you intend to continue the disruptive behaviour that caused your block, and you will simply try to compensate the drain on the project by doing RC work?

And you think that nitpicking and wikilawyering diff by diff, which is part of the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place, is going to help your unblock? You still haven't addressed the reason for your unblock: that you were wasting a lot of time of other editors again and again for no benefit or for a exceedingly small benefit.

Sorry, yeah, you must think that we are stupid. Either you stop your disruptive behaviour or you will eventually wind up indef-blocked. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I never expected my efforts to change the currently flawed status quo on the GW articles to make me popular. Changing the status quo is by definition disruptive. That doesn't make it any less worthwhile of a pursuit. The same can be said of the Cold Fusion article, although I am quite at a loss to explain how that minor piece of wikipedia has managed to gain such prominence. The GW articles are extensive and on a topic of some arguable import, but if we are to believe the scientific mainstreamer's on Cold Fusion the entire topic is a waste of time not even deserving of a minor footnote in the annals of scientific history. --GoRight (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"change the currently flawed status quo" my ass. Errrr, I mean, I have seen a few of your efforts to, ah, change the status quo, and they consisted mostly of raising technicalities to disrupt discussions that were sailing smoothly towards making something that improved the encyclopedia, and then, due to your intervention, the discussions became morasses that didn't accomplish anything useful. In situations like Jed's ban from cold fusion you were raising technicalities to unban an editor that had directly stated that he came back only to annoy us and that he had no intention of helping us to improve the article. How was that supposed to improve the status quo? Then Abd was banned because of disrupting so much the talk page and you did the same. This thing of defending the underdog is fine as soon as the underdog deserves that defense, which was clearly not the case there. You tried to unban two POV pushers that caused disruption, that has nothing to do with helping the encyclopedia or with improving status quos. And then, once they were finally banned for good, you never returned again to the article to improve it. I can't but conclude that you were there only to disrupt perfectly reasonable bans just for the sake of opposing a ban. That's not a behaviour that I want to see around here when trying to disentangle complicated issues in a talk page and POV pushers get in the frigging middle.

Amd I am being harsh because we already had a long long looong discussion where you tried to pull the same crap that you are pulling in your unblock appeal, and that it appears that you have been pulling for months after you left the cold fusion article.

So, you were blocked for disrupting behaviour, you refuse to acknowledge the disruption, and you refuse to agree to stop it? Well, stay blocked then. Nobody will miss you if you refuse to take this last opportunity to do constructive stuff instead of putting sticks in the wheels of the community. Higher trees have fallen, and wikipedia survived without them. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The point, Enric, that you fail to get is that you and so many of those you agree with are equally culpable with respect to the sin of POV pushing. You cannot write a NPOV article by extinguishing the unfavorable points of view. This is so glaringly obvious that I am dumbfounded that the banning of those points of view happens so regularly here, and especially on science related articles on controversial topics. --GoRight (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Boy Who Cried Wolf. You keep claiming that minority views are being suppressed to push the majority POV. You still refuse to acknowledge that those editors (the ones on cold fusion) wanted the minority POV to be represented as the majority opinion and paint the majority opinion as something wrong, thus breaking NPOV big time. You defend minority POV pushers for the sake of it, even if they are only damaging the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"You defend minority POV pushers for the sake of it, even if they are only damaging the articles." - In the interests of saving people's time here, let me just say that I disagree on all counts. --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, why not propose to not edit climate-science related articles and their talk pages for, say, one month? You could write some wiki-essay in which you explain what in your opinion is not working well here on Wikipedia and discuss thaty essay with the Wiki-community. So, you can still make your points, stay involvved without being perceived to be disruptive. E.g. I wrote the essay WP:ESCA some time ago and there were many heated discussions about that. Had I tried to edit the relevant policy pages directly and started long discussions on their talk pages then, given the lack of consensus, I would have been perceived to be disruptive at some point. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis has a good idea there goright, take a bit of time off from the CC Articles and write up the Documenting Standard Climate Change Arguments idea you had above. I think suh a thing would benefit the community a great deal. --mark nutley (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that CI has made a constructive and well meaning suggestion, albeit one with potential pitfalls as articulated by TOAT and TS. In the end, though, I am here for a reason and I have made that reason well-known. The recent change in my behavior, i.e. undertaking recent change patrol, is merely a reflection of a desire to give back to the community in a positive way since some editors feel that I am a net drain. The larger community shall either accept me as I am, or reject me, and temporary adjustments in behavior won't solve anything. With that in mind, however, focusing on one or two weeks out of several years worth of contributions isn't really reflective of the whole either and for similar reasons. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Count Iblis, it should be noted – in the interest of full disclosure – that this approach is not necessarily seen as productive or helpful in the broader community. When Brews ohare followed a course of action similiar to that which you propose here (and with your encouragement), it led to further disruption and a broadening of his editing restrictions. (See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.) In other words, it dug him a deeper hole. Encouraging GoRight to (superficially) accept a topic ban and then to begin a process of criticising editors in that topic area and seeking proxy editors would not end well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that encouraging GoRight to attempt any further engagement of this type would be counter-productive. His perspective may well be insightful but his manner of expressing it has proven unproductive and problematic. --TS 16:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, after the ArbCom case, Brews was contributing to the talk pages of some policy pages which some people found disruptive. If you compare Brews to GoRight, then GoRight is where Brews was before the speed of light ArbCom case. If Brews were to have backed off at the time Jehochman raised the issue at AN/I which later led to the ArbCom case, and Brews had instead written some essay about editing and discussing physics articles, then no one would have found that to be a problem. In fact most people would have found that great. Note that 'm not suggesting that GoRight directly contribute to the existing policy pages, rather that he writes up his ideas in his own essay. I don't see what disruption can be caused by that.

It should also be noted that the so-called disruption by Brews when he was editing the policy pages was really due to paranoia. But paranoia or no paranoia, if the wiki-community thinks there is a problem then there really is a problem, that's how Wikipedia works. As part of the Wiki-community, I initially told Brews that i.m.o. he could edit policy pages and contribute to my essay. Others said that they are not comfortable with that, and my efforts to make my point to them that he is not disruptive had failed, so I told Brews that he should not contribute to the policy pages (including to my own essay). Count Iblis (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

While the admins continue to mull this whole thing over, assuming that they have not already decided to issue a "pocket community ban" by simply refusing to unblock me, we might as well do something useful with the time. Since my behavior has been deemed a problem why don't we turn this thread into a mini-retrospective on that behavior. Why don't you all just tell me what it is about my behavior that you find unacceptable? I invite all manner of responses. --GoRight (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you've been told and told and told, over and over and over again. I'd suggest that instead of playing this game other editors go off and work on some articles. Think I'll do just that... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then summarize it for me before you leave. What have I been told so many times? Let's see if everyone agrees with your perspective on the message here? --GoRight (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your single propose account type obsession with the global warming issue which is simply an edit war over multiple articles is simply a waste of your time and energy, same goes for all the obsessed single purpose account type editors that are involved in the group of articles. Nothing good will come of it, you are wasting your time and energy there, look out the window nothing is changing, let it go, be man enough to laugh and walk away. You can enjoy editing here if you do this, there is a lot of worthy and rewarding work here that needs editors to help, I suggest you ask to be unblocked and let them know that you have put this time wasting behind you and that you will not edit any global warming articles. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, you are a new voice of sorts lately so you do offer some fresh perspective. I am not entirely sure how to respond to this. On the one hand you definitely make a sound point that I do expend a lot of time and energy for what appears to be very little gain. So in that sense it is an unproductive use of my time. On the other hand I am not alone in my view that there are serious WP:OWN and therefore WP:NPOV issues with many of the GW articles, and especially the BLPs. If I truly take the principles that are supposed to be the foundation of wikipedia to heart, how can I in good conscience fail to try and right these wrongs? Am I obsessed? Perhaps. Am I resolute in the pursuit of those founding principles? I would like to think yes. So this presents a bit of a conundrum, no? How much effort is too much in the pursuit of what's right? --GoRight (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a moot point, you will be but a washed up pebble on the desolated wikipedia shoreline as regards this issue, take this chance you have now to get out while the going is good. All the global warming articles have pov and own issues, your involvement won't change that one bit. Come and join in with the bigger picture of the wiki, you will feel liberated. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Much of problem appears to be related to GR's posts defending himself and others on WP:AN. I for one am bothered with the chilling effect such accusations have on the process. I know I thought long and hard about posting this. But if we accept that part of the case against GR, that, as another admin put it, he is guilty of an "effort to derail imposition of community sanctions", we accept a very Kafkaesque view of the sanctioning process. I can't really speak to the rest of the case 2/0 makes. There's obviously some dynamic at work here hidden to the uninitiated because the diffs by themselves seem pretty run of the mill, especially since only two of them relate to an article. JPatterson (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the background: he's been doing this consistently for a long time, and many editors have told him what was wrong with his editing. And he has been derailing community sanctions that should have been very clear and straightaway (see my comment on AN, and one of my comments above). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community sanctions shouldn't be "on a rail" in the first place. One presumes they're not meant to be show trials with the outcome certain from the start. If one can be dragged into the dock for expressing a viewpoint in that process, either in your own defense or in defense of others, consensus for sanctions will become a forgone conclusion by default because no one will dare speak for the accused. JPatterson (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I question whether I single handedly possess the power to "derail community sanctions" through the power of my words, but thank you for suggesting that I do. The processes are there to provide a community discussion. That I have availed myself of that forum and for that purpose should not be a sin, and if it is then then one has to ask why? What is it about my POV that it should be singled out for punishment when worse transgressions are committed by others on a regular basis? --GoRight (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• A suggestion; That where there is an existing consensus dissimilar to the your own pov or interpretation of sources on any topic, not just specifically relating to global warming related articles, that you restrict yourself to one comment every six three months - putting forward your rationale with supporting evidence. I had earlier proposed this at the AN discussion, where it gained absolutely no traction, but I will expand my vision so that you and readers may mull over the possible consequences. Firstly, it would not your interpretation that consensus exists but that of the other contributors (a consensus for the consensus). Your comment may address whatever part of the consensus and its proponents you wish, understanding that it shall abide by policy and that violations of policy will be dealt with severely. It may be of any length you wish, realising that a long polemic is likely to be regarded as WP:TL;DR and will not serve the desired change in the consensus. Lastly, that is it on the article talkpage or the talkpage of other editors (and email) - no further correspondence may be entered by you, although anyone may bring up the matter on your talkpage (but no referencing that at another venue). Obvious exceptions would be ArbCom pages, RfC's or other procedual pages. This gives you the opportunity to have your opinion heard, but without permitting what other editors have found to be the frustrating experience of your continuing return to the subject matter. The major advantage of my proposal is that I think I am the only person who would be happy with it - no one effected is going to much like it, but it is a compromise that might work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  I will truly think about this proposal, but at least initially I must decline. This is not a comment on the worthiness of your proposal as much as it is a stand on principle. I have done nothing other than having availed myself of the very processes and procedures that all editors in good standing are expected to adhere to. If this be a sin then I am certainly guilty. If I as a self-professed AGW skeptic am to be banned for merely following the community practices and participating in good faith then my plight will only serve to bolster the foundation of the claims that wikipedia's coverage of GW topics is horribly biased and my time here will have served its purpose.

  I respect your opinion, LHVU. You have on a few occasions spoken up in my defense and this is both noted and appreciated. I hope having done so will bring you no ill will. --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have the full time for this foolishness now. If this gets taken up the flag poll to where folks realize that equitable dispute resolutions are of value to wiki content, as are and persecution of folks who seek to bring real meaning to wiki principles is appreciated, then I'll have better to offer. For now, I'll review seeking answers to this somewhere else. GR, any suggestions where others may help in reforming the attack on you? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

  There is a vote on-going at [38]. No lengthy comments required, just a simple !vote. --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure of what the message being sent is. Is the problem my behavior and arguments on the GW pages themselves, or my defense of others who hold minority points of view such as Pcarbonn? If it is the former then I guess there is an irreconcilable difference, but if it is mostly the latter I could probably offer some compromise. It could also be both or neither, I suppose, I still haven't had a succinct articulation of "the problem". 2/0 has merely provided a set of representative diffs that he claims illustrates a problem but as I indicate above these appear to me to be standard run of the mill type edits when compared to those of other editors. --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in thinking about this whole situation things really seemed to flare up when I attempted to defend Pcarbonn and especially because I was attempting to refute the allegations against him on a point by point basis. LHVU has made here and at AN a suggestion that I only be allowed to make a single edit expressing my dissenting POV. It is unclear to me whether this is meant to apply only at AN and ANI, or other DR fora, or even on article pages and talk pages. Given that the bulk of the issue seems to have erupted at AN and because of my defense of someone holding a minority POV let me make the following voluntary offer:

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

Would this help resolve the concerns? --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

So you'd accept an injunction against wikilawyering and fisking? That sounds like an acceptable resolution to me. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Read what he wrote. He's proposing to add a new level, arguing about what and where he is (narrowly interpreted) allowed to argue where. We can repeat this for a number of times, but I'd expect the Big Boss on level 25 or so... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the sign of good faith here, Stephan. I am under no obligation to offer anything and am still free to appeal this block at arbcom. That, however, could be a roll of the dice for all involved so is not a matter to be taken lightly. This is a good faith offer intended to give you the spirit of what you seek while offering me some protection against abuse of a voluntary restriction. And the use of "narrowly construed" is intended to limit any arguments regarding what is covered rather than to foster them. If something is not explicitly stated then it is not covered. Period. Broadly construed is where the arguments will happen. So if your goal is reduced arguing then narrowly construed is definitely the way to go.

I will also say that when truly neutral voices such as LHVU are obviously in agreement that something must change that it is in my best interests to take such statements to heart. Alienating the neutral voices is clearly not in my best interests and so I shall, as I said, think on the matter and negotiate an agreement here in good faith. Other trusted voices such as ATren are also indicating as much, so I shall consider the matter seriously.

Regarding JzG's comment I believe that this proposal does, indeed, amount to an agreement to avoid "wikilawyering and fisking" but narrowly limited to discussions of community sanctions for editors other than myself at AN and ANI which are the primary venues where such discussions should be conducted. I could probably also be arm twisted into extending this to discussions at the climate change enforcement requests page for any requests that I myself have not opened. If I open a request I should be allowed to participate fully in those discussions, IMHO, noting of course that I have already been warned about opening any frivolous or vexatious requests there. This seems to be a substantial concession on my part. The question for you all to answer is whether it sufficiently covers what you see as the problem behaviors. --GoRight (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shameless: [39] and [40]. Here I am bottled up on my talk page and somehow I am orchestrating the entire event unfolding at AN. --GoRight (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And what's with Tony? He always seems intent on editing other people's comments without their permission. How is this not considered disruptive editing? And Enric seems a little bent on his own disruption making false claims of threats. I have made no threats. I am indefinitely blocked. I have no power to make threats. Blatant grandstanding by both. Makes them seem rather Desperate. --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Looking at how the !vote got started, is this edit [41] not a call for a !vote? Read the edit summary + "... Since 2/0 has given their rationale, then it beholds us to support or otherwise (and quickly!) so that it might not be overturned on a technicality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)" Or do you guys just get to ignore that and claim it never happened? --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk about wasting people's time with long repetitious comments, [42]. Continually editing other people's comments without permission? Is this an example of slipping back into old behaviors, [43]? --GoRight (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, can someone please explain to TS that I didn't invent the term !vote nor am I by any stretch of the imagination the only one that uses it. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you didn't personally invent the employment of the exclamation mark before the word "vote". I do still enjoy pointing out the absurdity of the practice, though. I've already remarked on this very talk page that it's as if you thought the exclamation mark was some kind of fnord. --TS 01:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It does indeed look like old habits are hard to break. Note the use of "he's the lowest kind of vermin on the internet" with regards to someone two other editors are calling you to task for. Oh, and I believe that you have been asked nicely to stay off my talk page ... multiple times. Please stop WP:HARASSing me when I am unable to even defend myself. --GoRight (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, GoRight. As long as you keep expressing a wish to communicate with me I will be happy to consider the possibility of communicating with you. It's a wiki and I think things would get silly very fast if I relied on smoke signals or something. --TS 02:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please note the obvious assumption of bad faith with "you thought the exclamation mark was some kind of fnord" which I suppose in intended to somehow WP:BAIT me. Unfortunately this tactic doesn't work. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? You can't turn a discussion into a vote by inserting an exclamation mark in front of the word "vote", as you tried to do here. --TS 02:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I am currently blocked. I could not have called for a !vote at AN even if I had wanted to. LHVU, however, did just that: [44]. As to your diff above, it contains a typo. The first instance of "vote" should also have had the exclamation point. There is nothing nefarious in that comment. Now, will you please stop WP:HARASSing me? --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I think you are wrong. [45]. --GoRight Regardless of what you call it this all amounts to the same thing, the community expressing their opinion. Why would the support and oppose opinions be ignored, exactly? (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

As to the baby ducks (which is no criticism of any of them, I'm simply saying that they were !voting), we saw [46][47][48][49][50], until TS finally questions it.

But the conga line continued: [51][52]Moi[53][54][55][56][57][58].

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

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

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

But, after all this, another editor added a !vote. [60]. I can imagine an editor realizing that this wasn't as clear as it was being claimed, something had to be done. I can imagine the light bulb going off. "I know! If we remove the appearance of a poll, we can nail Abd's ass to the wall, for failing to Mind His Own Business. No bolding, no poll." As if.

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

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

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

Unblock request

I read your request, but decided I would not act on it either way. Lest you feel ignored, I hope you appreciate that I at least read it and was hoping somebody else would act one way or the other. I'm somewhat disappointed that you were not given a prompt up or down answer. It's not proper to leave a user in limbo like that. Maybe you could re--read WP:GAB and post a new request. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. I was not actually offended by the lack of a response given the ongoing discussion at AN. I assumed that those already familiar with the case, such as yourself, would have decided much as you indicate you did to let things play out as it were. I also assumed that the lack of a response by those unfamiliar was merely a reflection of the heated nature that the climate change related topics have a reputation for was driving them away. The way that Tedder was treated after dipping his toe into this pool probably served as a warning to others.

It seems that some sort of "agreement" is in order here so I shall endeavor to find one that can serve the community's purposes while still allowing me to pursue my interests, albeit is what should hopefully be viewed as a more acceptable way. That's a fair request given the views that have been expressed all around. So to that end I shall hold a dialogue with 2/0 to see how much middle ground exists. I'm in no particular hurry, I suppose. Pending the outcome of that discussion I may do as you suggest. --GoRight (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, I haven't commented one way or another on this and to be honest I wasn't sure you would want my opinion. But after watching all of this for so long I decided I'm going to make a suggestion anyways. Please feel free to ignore it. I think first you need to promise all around to pick your battles more appropriately. You seem to be fighting people in many different directions and the focus is lost. You look at time like you are tenacious because the battles all start to look the same and the meaning is lost for the many who see it but don't know you. If you try to go to any article or two without all this attention I think you will be amazed at the difference it can make. Editing can actually be relaxing if the editors all talk to each other. So all I am really suggesting is to take time away from all of this. You have been at it for a year or two. Let some of the fresh blood come in and just watch for awhile. Do RC patrol, vandal patrol, whatever that gives you a look outside of the controversary. Then if you decide you need to get involved after a break away, you'll be refreshed and so will everyone else. Maybe then everyone will start talking to each other but more important listening to each and come to a compromise before things get to blocking bad. I hope you understand what I am saying. It's actually very simple to do. I really suggest a whole lot of the editors in the controversary if stuck in this trench, try doing other things too. What is anyone accomplishing the way it is now? Nothing except editors are angry, some are watching on the sidelines breafly and others are supposed to be gone permanently. It doesn't make sense to me. I hope this helps some, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Crohnie. You are actually one of the few voices who seem to be able to keep things in perspective. I agree with the spirit of your post but in this current environment the devil is in the details and one has to be clear, precise, and cautious in everything they do. I allowed myself to become lax on those points the past couple of weeks and now it is coming back to haunt me. I shall reflect on your suggestions as things progress and incorporate them where appropriate. Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody needs to start up an alternative wiki to run? Shot info (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already been done. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, push all those conservatives away, and then you can turn this into Conservapedia's mirror image. ATren (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)