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Historical References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

Notes for when I can edit again

Arbcom Rulings:

• Modifying other users' comments (OMG, he edited that exact page [1].)

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.[2][3]

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 [4] 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, [5]. 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, [6], this thread, [7], 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)

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

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

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

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

{{unblock|1=I first draw the reviewing administrator's attention to the substantial discussion of this situation at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:An#GoRight] and elsewhere on my talk page.<br><br>Recognizing that neutral voices such a LHVU are in some level of agreement that my behavior has been a problem of late I hereby acknowledge that it has been problematic and I apologize to the community for having misbehaved. I shall make a good faith effort to address the concerns which have been explicitly articulated in the discussions related to this block and which, to the best of my understanding, include: (a) wasting the time of other editors at AN and ANI, and (b) failing to promote a collegial atmosphere to the detriment of the project. I hereby acknowledge and affirm that I ''"have the responsibility to communicate civilly and respectfully"'' and declare that it is my sincere intent to significantly improve my behavior in this regards.<br><br>With regards to the purely procedural aspects of the block itself and the specific points laid out in [[WP:GAB]] quoted above, the block was made after a period of approximately a day and a half of being away from editing altogether and specifically while I was engaged in recent change patrol and so there was no imminent danger to the project from that activity to justify this block. Regarding whether my behavior rose to the level of disruption from a ''purely technical POV'' and so ''not to diminish in any way my freely made admissions above'', it is worth noting that the extensive discussion of my behavior on AN both before and after this block failed to demonstrate a consensus in support of this block. Evidence: 2/0 himself acknowledged a lack of consensus from before the block [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=338426591&oldid=338413437 here] when he states ''"LHVU raises a valid point - there is not a consensus here for a block. ..."'') and after (you'll have to make your own assessment based on the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#GoRight_Blocked here]).<br><br>For these reasons, I respectfully request that the block be undone.}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, [8], 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)

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

You were not blocked for any of that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifically regarding the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am holding up a mirror here to illustrate a point: Could you explain to me how [9] could be part of seeking an amicable resolution? Alternatively, could you explain how you think the fact that I am indefinitely blocked and being asked these questions when not even a mention was made to the author of this edit is being received, and expand on what bearing that understanding might have on your future actions?

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

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

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 [10] 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. [11] accusation of perfidy For those such as myself who do not even know what perfidy means, see [12]. 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. [13] 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? [14] 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, [15]. [16] 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. [17] 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? [18] 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: [19] [20] 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? [21] 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? [22] 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? [23] 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, [24]. 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. [25] 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? [26] 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. [27] 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. [28] snide incivility Note that this comment was in reply to [29] and yet 2/0 seeks to single it out. Note also that I had a response to back it up, [30]. This is not blockable behavior, and especially not when I am being harassed on my own talk page. [31] accusation of bad faith Part of that same conversation. Not that this is in response to [32]. 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, [33]. [34] 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, [35], 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. [36] 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. [37] 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.

A summary of the opinions expressed at [38]:

Current consensus polling results as of 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Summary of opinions on the legitimacy of GoRight's block # Supporting Opposing 1 JzG ZP5 2 LHVU ATren 3 ArcAngel JPatterson 4 Enric Naval Thegoodlocust 5 ChrisO Alex Harvey 6 WMC V 7 Ratel Mark nutley 8 Jack Merridew Collect 9 Bali ultimate Pete Tillman 10 Mathsci Elhector 11   Nightmote 12   Mackan79 (ish) If you notice any inaccuracies in this table please bring them to my attention.

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 [39] and [40]. 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 [41]. 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: [42] and [43]. 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 [44] 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, [45]. Continually editing other people's comments without permission? Is this an example of slipping back into old behaviors, [46]? --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: [47]. 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)

Enric Naval makes the following argument, [48]. This argument is flawed. He appeals to WP:POLL which merely states that polling is not a substitute for discussion. This fails to establish that the poll was not a poll as he would have you believe, it merely establishes that the poll was not a substitute for discussion. Indeed, he also points to WP:PRACTICAL which states "polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes". All well and good, but this also fails to establish that the poll there was not a poll, it merely establishes that the poll was not a vote. Either way there was obviously a poll on-going, in fact it still is, and TS's reformatting obviously did not change that fact one bit and neither does the argument just made by EN. --GoRight (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wellllll, see, LHVU never said that he was starting a "poll" or a "vote". How do you know that he wasn't starting a "structured discussion" instead, and then people confused it with a poll? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See the analysis of his edit here. He directly referred to his !vote as a !vote which is clearly a reference to a poll, and as he later explains he was seeking to establish the legitimacy of the block which is exactly the type of thing a poll is used for. Note also, your use of "structured discussion" is equivalent to "poll" per your own source in WP:!VOTE wherein it states:

"The terms "!vote", "!voting" and "!voter", introduced in 2006, are sometimes used in discussions to indicate that taking part in a straw poll is not voting, but rather engaging in an act of consensus-building. These terms serve as reminders that while we do vote on things, votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored."

Emphasis is mine. --GoRight (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See the first sentence in that subsection, it only applies to "article-related straw poll(s)". And the parent section is called "Use of polls when discussing Wikipedia articles", and it says "Editor conduct used to be subject to polling in the past, via a system called Quickpolls, but this was deprecated years ago because it generated more heat than light."

And LHVU doesn't say "vote" nor "!vote" nor "poll". He does however says "discussion". All the rest are conclusions that you are inferring.

P.D.: of course, if you keep changing the meaning of "poll" depending on what definition suits you, then you can call anything a poll. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't changed the meaning of anything. A poll is a poll. Period.

"And LHVU doesn't say "vote" nor "!vote" nor "poll"." - You appear to be confused somehow because it is baffling why you would make this statement when it has been pointed out several times that his edit summary clearly states:

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

I suggest you take your argument up with the history on the AN page. --GoRight (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, XfDs have the exact same format, with bolded !votes of "keep" and "oppose", yet they are structured discussions that are closed by rough consensus and, unlike polls, they are not resolved by counting heads. By your wide-reaching definition even RfCs would be polls since people many times use "!vote" to comment there. Pick a definition and stick with it: straw poll, structured discussion, consensus discussion, rough consensus gathering, etc.

Notice that all this "poll" thing is not relevant to your block. It's only relevant to Abd's block, because his Arbcomm restriction excluded "polls", and it seems that they used it with a loose meaning. There is a request for clarification about what arbcomm meant by "poll" in the context of their ruling. If arbs think that Fut.Perf made an incorrect block and that the AN block discussion was covered by the "poll" word in the ruling, then they will say so at that place if they think it necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"GoRight, XfDs have the exact same format, with bolded !votes of "keep" and "oppose", yet they are structured discussions that are closed by rough consensus and, unlike polls, they are not resolved by counting heads." - Who ever said anything about counting heads? That would be an actual Vote, which is not something that we do here. We do straw polls, aka !Votes. Straw polls are obviously only meant to gauge consensus of opinion, not to operate like a democracy. You do realize that I understand all of this, right?

Your appeal to XfDs as an example of something that is NOT a poll is actually funny. See [49], wherein the decision at WP:AE regarding what Abd is allowed to participate in states:

"I imagine the polls so mentioned include things like the recent Arbcom elections, constitutional conventions and straw polls, and perhaps even XfD debates. These polls by their nature invite comment from all, though preferably ones that are pithy, insightful, topical."

So you claim that XfDs are NOT polls and yet the uninvolved admin indicates that Abd may actually participate in XfDs. This seems to be incongruent with your assertion. Why so? Because the Arbcom ruling only allows Abd to participate in polls and yet WP:AE indicates he may participate in XfDs. Doesn't that sort of imply that XfDs are a form of poll?

The simple fact of the matter is that LHVU called for a straw poll, implied by his use of the term !vote in his edit summary, for the purpose of gauging consensus on the legitimacy of my block. It was clearly a straw poll despite to protestations of Abd's detractors.

Regarding both the request for clarification and the arbcom enforcment proceedings, you seem to have missed the fact that I commented at both before you even arrived so I am fully aware of what is happening in each. --GoRight (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And then you go and you start counting heads in the AN discussion.....

It is not a headcount. It is a summary of the overall views which have been expressed. How would you try to take a huge list of interleaved opinions and summarize them into something intelligible? --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, many people have said that, if you could just stop behaving in certain ways, then you could be unblocked and you could improve the encyclopedia a lot in the GW articles. GoRight, please think about this: things like arguing about the definition of polls and counting heads in ban discussions is the sort of behaviour that others consider to be "wikilawyering". Doing this sort of thing damages your opportunities of getting unblocked and remaining unblocked. Please reconsider. Drop the arguing about how many people "!voted" in one way or other and start taking to heart what 2/0 told you in your unblock instead of trying to debunk it diff by diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Where have I "argued" about anything? I merely provided a summary table based on the general tenor of the opinions expressed. I specifically and consciously AVOIDED the use of the words count and tally. Why do you object to trying to distill such information down into a meaningful and easily digestible format? That's all I have done. It's raw information, not argument either way. It just is what it is without bias.

You want me to take 2/0's comments to heart, fine. In the interests of promoting a more collegial atmosphere here could you please refrain from accusing others of "wikilawyering" and "arguing" because they simply distilled a pile of text into something useful? Could you please refrain from putting words into other people's mouths?

You don't like distilling information into summary forms, I gather. Well fine. But different people assimilate information in different ways. In the interests of being collegial could you please make an effort to accommodate those of us who assimilate such information in a manner different than your own preferred style without using such an accusatory tone? It would be much appreciated and doing so would go ever so far towards improving the general atmosphere here.

Regardless, I still accept this comment in the spirit with which it was intended. Please accept my complaint in that same spirit, ok?

As to my unblock request, I have addressed the specifics of the behavioral problems which have been clearly and succinctly articulated by 2/0 and elsewhere. I have even undertaken to engage in a dialogue with 2/0 to better distill and identify the core of his concerns. Thus far he has chosen to be generally unreceptive to holding a meaning dialogue on those points and so I have been correspondingly vague in my request. Dumping a bunch of random diffs onto my talk page does not a coherent statement of the problem make. Maybe it does for you, but it doesn't for me. I want to see the distilled bottom line articulation of the issues so that they can be directly and precisely addressed. I prefer to address things with a scalpel rather than a shotgun. That doesn't make me wrong and it doesn't make me a wikilawyer.

I plan to leave the unblock request up for some amount of time and am open to following through with the dialogue I tried to start with 2/0, but sans any progress on those fronts it would seem I have no choice but to seek arbitration as the next step since I will have exhausted the available appeals channels below that level. --GoRight (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More comments from the peanut gallery

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

Reply to JzG at AN: Re: [50] and Wikipedia:BASC. Funny he should mention that. I already have the email drafted. I was going to sit on it until tomorrow to give 2/0 a chance to come to his senses and actually step up to engage in the dialogue, but I can send it now if he prefers. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comment for EN: Re: [51]. You are asking the question is a biased manner, IMHO. The correct phrasing would be, are straw polls conducted on AN as part of a ban discussion considered polls under his restriction? Obviously the discussion itself is not a poll, but that discussion can certainly contain a straw poll that IS a poll. --GoRight (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Forget it

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, I think you are wrong. [52]. --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 [53][54][55][56][57], until TS finally questions it.

But the conga line continued: [58][59]Moi[60][61][62][63][64][65].

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

[66], 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. [67]. 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)

Question for LHVU

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

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

used the following edit summary:

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

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

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

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

Could someone please convey this link, [68], to LHVU's talk page to alert him to my question? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss Option 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discuss Option 2

It occurs to me that the KISS principle applies here.

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

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

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

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

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)

[Orphaned comments removed]

@ATren: Understood, but if I am to take 2/0's message articulated above to heart, I should endeavor to actively promote a more collegial atmosphere. Where better to start than on my own talk page, so I again ask ChrisO to refactor his comment to remove the obvious invective which is not congruent with promoting a collegial atmosphere. --GoRight (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, in the interests of good will, but I think I might have a go at writing an essay along those lines - something about why American conservatives find Wikipedia such hard going. I'll be sure to provide you with a link. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As you wish, but what good do you think will come of such an endeavor? What value will it provide to the project? --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to look at conservatives as monolithic. I am sure there are many conservatives editing away happily without anybody realizing they have conservative political views because these happy editors don't edit toward their political views; they write with a goal of documenting what is, rather than changing things more to their liking. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) I for one would love to see ChrisO's essay. There seems to be a belief among some editors here that alienating conservatives somehow makes us better than Conservapedia; when, in reality, it turns us into Conservapedia's mirror image: no better, no worse. So I'd love to hear ChrisO's thoughts on this. ATren (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps on an off-wiki venue then. I tend to be fairly thick skinned and am more than willing to engage in a pointed back and forth on such things but it has been pointed out to me above that this can be taken as a detriment to the project and this is a fair complaint. We are not here to debate the worthiness, or lack thereof, of American conservative ideology (except I suppose in the context of an article on such a thing) and doing so only serves to alienate others or inflame already strained tensions on the project. While 2/0 has chosen to use my own behavior as an example of this, I can only assume that the underlying principle he advocates is meant to apply equally to all editors. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please quit characterizing this as conservative vs liberal. This is science vs anit-science. One side shares its data and algorithms and the other doesn't. Science is the search for truth. Climategate shows (I might be banned if I complete this sentence). Q Science (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it's science vs anti-science, but not quite in the way that you're thinking of; rejecting scientific conclusions because they contradict ideological preconceptions is anti-science. That's not an conservative vs liberal phenomenon. The Soviets did it (remember Lysenkoism?) but now, unfortunately, it seems to be a defining feature of American conservatism. The problems Wikipedia has on science articles, particularly relating to climate change, seem to be a backwash from this phenomenon. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"rejecting scientific conclusions because they contradict ideological preconceptions is anti-science" - Well, this is a true statement but it is also true that this is a misdirection from the actual debate here on wikipedia alluded to by Q, ergo it is a Strawman. --GoRight (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, I agree with you 100% that "rejecting scientific conclusions because they contradict ideological preconceptions is anti-science". But so is claiming that the science is done and then trying to stop people from proving a hypothesis wrong. But even worse is redefining the issue as "conservative vs liberal". That is the sort of thing people do when they are losing the debate, not when the data supports their position. Q Science (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only "conservative vs liberal" when "conservative" equals anti-science and "liberal" equals pro-science (and note that that's only really the case in the US; European conservatives have no problem with science). The correlation is a recent phenomenon. If we'd been talking about Russia in the 1930s the correlation would have been "communist" equals anti-science and "conservative" equals pro-science. They are not fixed correlations, and I fully expect that US conservatives will eventually swing back to a pro-science position, though of course by then it may be too late to make a difference. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Identify the logical fallacy (bonus points for using the correct academic term): Most fundamentalist Christian's are skeptical of science. Most fundamentalist Christian's are politically conservative. Ergo, most political conservatives are skeptical of science. JPatterson (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

People become skeptical of science when it appears that the science is being used to promote an agenda. I am a very scientific person, and have been doing research for the past 15 years, but that doesn't mean I automatically trust all scientific conclusions. I have seen firsthand researchers reject statistical analysis that didn't fit what their belief the outcome should have been. I have been asked to participate in statistical test mining, in which one tries test after test until they get one that presents the view they already believe. You simply would be amazed how often this is done, or at least attempted in science. As such I have a pretty critical eye to any science that appears to fit the pre-determined outcome or instances where there are no contradictory responses. To me, this is anti-science since it does far more harm than anything else, and only makes honest scientists lives more difficult. Arzel (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I only continue this discussion here because this article is very germane to GR's points about minority views. It should be required reading in all freshman science curricula and even more so for wiki editors. Scientific progress is Brownian, the drunk eventually gets home but the route is usually quite circuitous. JPatterson (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of GoRight's block and wider NPOV issues.

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

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

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

Re: [69]. With respect to the underlying rationale for there being legitimate skepticism of the current AGW dogma, both Gwen Gale and Arzel are making excellent points here and I completely agree with the sentiments expressed by both. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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