User talk:GoRight: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:24, 29 April 2010

Historical References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 5

A Hint

Don't repost there.[1] If further steps are needed, go to a neutral venue or ask a neutral party to mediate (probably best to find somebody besides me). Cheers, Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I don't know why this should be a sensitive topic. Either he considers us involved, or not. I believe that he considers us uninvolved based on his comments at Trusilver's talk page but I just want to know where we stand. I don't even care which way he answers, I just want something on record to avoid arguing about it later if the topic ever comes up again. Ironically, he recently told me that if I have an issue with someone the first place to go is to their talk page. So, I took his advice. --GoRight (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for what an appropriate venue might be? I ask because I feel as though I need to walk on egg shells sometimes even for a straight forward question such as this. I don't want to make waves here, I just want an answer that will stick. --GoRight (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PITCHFORKS

At this point, I feel that greater community input concerning your editing history and the concerns of others is needed. I have started a discussion here[2]. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded there per your request. --GoRight (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the points raised

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Trusilver's good faith, so I must admit to being somewhat surprised by some of his characterizations of the edits he provides. So let me seek input on them one at a time.

First diff [3]

The background on this edit is as follows:

Some time back Atmoz had indicated on his talk page that he was withdrawing from climate change topics (this is the edit where I was made aware of it),
A new process was proposed at the this discussion climate probation request for enforcement page,
Atmoz made an edit that would have been covered by that new process,
An editor complained and asked Atmoz to redact what they felt was a personal attack and Atmoz deleted the complaint,
I made a neutral comment informing Atmoz of the new policy, and
I followed up with a friendly FYI on his talk page to make sure he was aware of the new policy since I thought there might be a reasonable probability that he hadn't seen it previously.

So I was honestly trying to be helpful in terms of making sure Atmoz was aware of what was happening at the Climate Change RfE. I didn't prod him, I didn't take sides, I simply provided him information he might need to know. I had no way to know that he didn't care about the probation policy discussion, but once he made that clear I didn't bother him further. So please help me understand how this is harassment, when I have been told that things like this are no big deal? --GoRight (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

I just want to make a statement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I just stumbled across the discussion scanned some of it and want to make a statement. Good luck Mlpearc MESSAGE 02:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

How you should proceed depends on your ideas. The wiki page on essays says that you can write about almost anything related to Wikipedia, as long as the essay does not undermine Wikipedia.

You just choose a title (say Title of My Essay) and then construct this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Title_of_My_Essay

You click on the link and then you get the message:

"Wikipedia does not have a project page with this exact name. Start the Wikipedia:Title of My Essay page...."

And then you click on "Start the Wikipedia page..."

For your essay to be listed properly, you have to start it like:

==Section 1==

etc.

Count Iblis (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Your help is kindly appreciated. --GoRight (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a idea task. Last time you kinda agreed that it would be a good idea to produce actual content. Apparently nothing has happened - why not? Writing articles is the most important and the most gratifying part of Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't definitively settled on this, nor do I need to select one thing. Diversity would be appropriate, no? As to producing content, I am seriously considering some work with the copy-edit idea as well. Would that fall satisfactorily under the heading of content work, or not? Or are you only referring to only to generating new content?

I actually started looking into the Constellation idea you gave me, and it is still a good one. The issue I ran into and which I am not really sure how to address is that most of the high-quality sources are primary research papers, many of which are far too technical for our purposes here. There is always the possibility that I simply wasn't looking in the right place, e.g. Google Scholar. My experience on the CC pages has made me hyper-sensitive to WP:OR issues with using primary sources. It is difficult to stitch together a meaningful and well written article out of just primary sources because everything you write is technically WP:OR. How is this problem typically addressed in other articles? --GoRight (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try it out in your user space first and ask for feedback. Viriditas (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I was thinking the same thing. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Municipal broadband

That's a fascinating topic. I hope you decide to stick with it. I might join you if I have some free time. Hang in there. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to finish what I have started, it's just a time issue. I've heard that there is no deadline! :) --GoRight (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GoRight! Sorry not to get back to you sooner, I had to go to Calgary for the day. I see you have already chosen an article to work on. Yes, you are on the right track with what sort of improvements are typically required. If you want any help or want a final read-through just let me know, or post here [[4]] and one of us will give it a final look-see for you. As you move through the list you will be more comfortable removing tags without input from others. Thank you so much for offering to help with this project. We have a growing list of articles needing copy edit so you are very welcome to join the team!! Have fun, see you round the wiki. :) Diannaa ^TALK 19:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks. I am going to make a cut at improving that article. It may take some time as I and first looking for and reading relevant sources to get a better feel for the various dimensions of the issue. The article currently has a mix of material that should probably be sub-divided a bit.

For example, there is a legal background and framework to the issue which is one of the core dimensions and this should be discussed and highlighted in its own section. A couple of the existing sources mention this but I am currently looking into whether this should be fleshed out further. I was expecting to ask you or some other appropriate volunteer to review the "finished" (these articles are never really finished) product to get another set of eyes looking at it. I'll stop by when it is in a state worth looking at more closely. --GoRight (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Per the consensus here, I've gone ahead and blocked your account as it is now community banned. The community have been willing to look at bans after some months (normally, they will only look at appeals if there has been no socking). Showing good work on another project often helps. I would encourage you to take some time out and consider making an appeal to the community after a good few months if you are willing to behave more appropriately. You do also have the opportunity of appealing this sanction directly to the Arbitration Committee's ban appeals sub-committee. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I question your neutrality here given some of our interactions and some of your comments about me in the past, but let's defer that for now. If you wouldn't mind, rather than smoothing this all over, or brushing it all under the rug, by simply closing the AN/I discussion could you please give an accounting of who in that discussion you are considering to be neutral, uninvolved editors who support a ban? These are the people we are supposed to be taking into consideration in such decisions, correct? --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I didn't even remember that you filed a request for arbitration surrounding the climate change discretionary sanctions - My only involvement was to instigate setting it up - I have no interest in the field at all. It doesn't bother me whether they continue or not. I really don't think I'm biased with regards to you - I have no opinion about whether you should or should not be banned - You don't edit in my field and I rarely come into contact with you. With regards to the ban, it doesn't really matter how many people supported, or who for that matter - a community ban is an indefinite block that no administrator would be willing to overturn. From what I see from the discussion, no administrator would be willing to overturn an indefinite block from your account. When it came to the discussion of consensus (See here), not one person suggested that there shouldn't be a ban. One person was neutral, but stated that they wouldn't stand in its way - there was a fairly clear consensus that there should be a ban. I noted in my notification to you that you should take some time out before considering an appeal to BASC - I'm disappointed that you've decided to appeal it so soon - You would have have been much more successful had you appealed the sanction a few months down the line on the grounds that you were willing to change your behaviour, not meta points about who supported what which I fear will no doubt prolong your ban. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this explanation seems confusing when one looks at the details. Am I merely blocked, in which case I can legitimately put up an unblock request to see if someone will unblock me or not, or am I banned, in which case doing so would be moot because other administrators would be barred from unilaterally overturning the ban by unblocking me without another community discussion or an appeal? I was not blocked until you took action, and so I had been assuming the latter since you declared me to be community banned and cited a community discussion and directed me to the appropriate ban appeals review board.

In any event, I think my email to the subcommittee makes it clear that I was merely asking them to review the legitimacy of the declared ban. If they agree that it is legitimate then I am banned. If they find fault with how things were handled then I am not banned and should be unblocked. As a first step I merely want the subcommittee to weigh in on this point. A formal appeal of the ban, should it actually exist, would come at a later time as you suggest ... at least this is how I was looking at the situation.

I am not looking to pick a fight, or create drama (which should be obvious since I was staying away from the ANI discussion for the most part). TS somehow declared a "broad consensus" for a ban when the discussion that proceeded his declaration showed anything but that IMHO. TS is clearly not a neutral party here as I note below, so why he is proposing anything seems not on to me. I just want to get back to what I was doing when you blocked me which is copy editing the Municipal broadband article and doing RCP. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to the Appeals Subcommittee

I don't believe that I have the energy to really fight this anymore, but I did want at least a review of the discussion and the close. From that perspective here is an email that I sent to the subcommittee which is provided here for the benefit of interested parties:

Email to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

I don't wish to drag anything out here, nor do I wish for any more drama. I do however have some concerns regarding Ryan's close here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=353192306#Request_for_community_input_on_User:GoRight

As you know I had opposed Ryan's implementation of the Climate Change Probation and asked for an arbitration case to review his actions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=336089218#Climate_Change_Probation

So I question Ryan's neutrality as a closer, but the committee may feel differently. Of the people commenting at that discussion I consider the following to have had significant personal interactions with myself sufficient to have impaired their neutrality of opinion in matters concerning myself (includes both supporters and detractors):

leaving only the following editors as neutral enough to comment in my opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Trusilver - Neutral on the ban but also suggested more RCP work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mlpearc - Suggested the the Swiss Family Robinson option.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Viriditas - Suggested non-admin clean-up tasks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NuclearWarfare - Suggested working on WP:Requested articles and unreferenced BLPs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diannaa - Suggested working on the copy edit backlog ... something I was pursuing with the Municipal broadband article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dayewalker - Argued with Viriditas over comments about Ncmvocalist but does not appear to have expressed an opinion on me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken - Appears to support an indefinite block, but this may be tongue in cheek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jtrainor - Appears to support a ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atama - Supports a ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AniMate - Supports a ban.

so by my count we have lots of discussion by involved, non-neutral parties, 5 neutral parties suggesting constructive avenues to pursue, 1 neutral party with no opinion, and 4 neutral parties supporting the ban.

At this point in time I merely want the ban appeals subcommittee to review whether Ryan is sufficiently neutral to have closed and whether the discussion supports his determination of consensus to ban. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

GoRight

Yes I agree I could be considered biased, which is why I commented instead of favoring or opposing any sanctions - something far more people should have done. Also, I think it is clear from my actions that my personal feelings on a subject don't really impact how I apply wikipedia policy. Cheers, and good luck on your appeal. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from the Appeals Subcommittee

For those who might be interested, here is the reply I finally received from the Appeals Subcommittee.

Email from the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

The Ban Appeal Subcommittee has considered your appeal and declined to unblock you at this time.

As a pre-condition of re-examining the ban, we expect to see evidence of changed and well-controlled behaviour. This could come either (i) in the form of three-months trouble-free editing on another wikiproject (for example, Simple wiki or Commons) or (ii) six-months complete absence from the English Wikipedia. Once you have satisfied either of these conditions, you may re-apply with proposals for appropriate editing restrictions and we will re-consider your application.

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell Kinney

It arrived today at 5:12AM. --GoRight (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]