User talk:GoRight

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

Back Pointer 1 Back Pointer 6

Back Pointer 2 Back Pointer 7

Back Pointer 3 Back Pointer 8

Back Pointer 4

Back Pointer 5

Blocked (2)

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

Despite numerous warnings, lengthy detailed discussions with friendly and neutral editors, and formal sanctions, you have chosen not to abandon your apparent determination to be a drain on the volunteer resources of the community rather than an asset to the project. You have been editing in spurts since late 2007, and have amassed nearly five and a half thousand edits. You have a fine mind, a keen eye for detail, and an admirable willingness to stand against the tide. You could have chosen to be a great boon to this project. Instead, you have chosen to devote your efforts to stirring disputes in restraint of collaboration, making unreasonable demands in questionable faith on the time of your fellow volunteers, and grandstanding and tilting at windmills of minutia without evincing a serious interest in the productive creation of content. Serious discussion is one way to contribute to quality articles, but frivolously disputatious bickering is not. Your top-edited articles and talkpages include not a single page that would not serve as a forum for argument for its own sake. Spreading every sliver of contention across as many project pages as will feed the flames of drama shows an unseemly disinclination to contribute to a free high quality encyclopedia, or even let other people get on with building it. I even spent my own social capital in your defense here, but the promised reforms have not materialized.

You usually maintain at least a veneer of courtesy, but far too often you make comments that are snide, sarcastic, condescending, or similarly only superficially polite. The term civility is often hyperlinked to Wikipedia:Civility, but it is really not being used as a term of art with some byzantine Wikipedia-specific definition unrelated to the societal norm of treating people with basic respect even in the face of serious disagreement. Accusations of collusion, insinuations of bad faith negotiation, and intimidation by intimation are never civil.

There follows a sampling of problematic diffs from the preceding week. Many of these are in context of discussions where other editors are also behaving disruptively, but the behaviour of others is immaterial to this sanction. It is worth noting that your participation in a discussion rarely has the effect of calming an inflamed situation or restoring a productive focus, though it often has rather the opposite effect. Some of my comments below include reference to guidelines or essays rather than policy; this should be taken as shorthand for the points laid out at those pages, not as indication that they are being used to justify this block.

1. accusation of gross misconduct outside of a dispute resolution process
2. accusation of perfidy
3. needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion
4. sarcasm and accusation of bad faith
5. violation of WP:POINT
6. accusation of partiality and collusion
7. accusation of abuse and bad faith (diff includes edits by other editors to include the mitigating factor that you later struck part of a comment)
8. inflaming an already passionate discussion
9. unproductive sarcasm
10. uncivil insinuation
11. violation of WP:POINT and unevidenced accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter.
12. demand that other users expend their time and effort to your satisfaction
13. referring to people as "my good friend" is actually a bit annoying; this is just my personal opinion, not part of the blocking rationale, especially given your explanation here
14. incivility
15. Here you state at 01:17 on the 13th server time that you had dropped the matter of Pcarbonn's topic ban after a neutral administrator closed the discussion. Here an hour earlier is your back-handed acceptance of the clear community consensus. Here at 20:49 on the 12th, however, is another close by an uninvolved administrator, followed by, well, some of the diffs above ... then the close you acknowledged ... then another half dozen edits here. Really, choosing to insert yourself into that discussion at all given your recent block and sanction was particularly ill-advised. Other editors are capable of raising questions of due process (as, indeed, they did).
16. snide incivility
17. accusation of bad faith
18. includes: placing an unreasonable burden of evidence (very few people state that they are here to advance a personal agenda, it must be inferred from their edits); accusations of bad faith (saying AGF is not a shield to then proceed to fail to any more than stating "with all due respect" is a free pass to insult someone); and condescension.
19. accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter
20. failure to show due diligence. You could easily have contributed productively here by adding the omitted log entry yourself.

For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others, lack of basic consideration for the norms of constructive discussion, unacceptable focus on using this website as a forum for unduly burdensome and unproductive discussion at the expense of improving content, and following discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight, I am blocking your access indefinitely. Thank you for your contributions.

Administrators: Please discuss this block with me before modifying or lifting it unless there is a substantial community consensus or the action is otherwise obvious or non-controversial. I prefer open review, but my email is enabled if you would prefer to discuss off site. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[Redacted]

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

Well, let me see if I can get it right this time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

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

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

Discussion of your framework

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

Climate change topic ban

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

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

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

Ban on participation on community discussions

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

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

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

Peanut gallery commentary ...

RE: [1] discussion including Hipocrite.

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

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

• [2] wherein he asserted that "antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere", and
• [3] wherein he stated that "Insults and acerbic comments directed at your fellow volunteers, no matter how veiled in a shield of indirect insinuation instead of brazen violation of the NPA policy, are detrimental to the project. They deprive us of the good editors who would prefer to spend their time more pleasantly; they set up the hackles of the good editors who stay, provoking dominance games and response in kind; they select for people who find endless argument more rewarding than building an encyclopedia through collaborative discussion.".

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

RE: [4] by Hipocrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still blocked?

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

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

Unblocking conditions

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

Civility

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

Climate Change Topic Ban

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

Moving forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editing restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

CRU hacking incident article name

Current Proposal

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

Climatic Research Unit email and document controversy

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

Our reasons are as follows:

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

We believe that this proposal has the following benefits:

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

Signed,

1. GoRight (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
3. ATren (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC) -- though stylistically I'd prefer removing the "and document", which is a little clumsy. But I'd be fine with any wording that termed it a "controversy", which would nicely encompass both the unauthorized distribution of the emails as well as the content concerns. Addendum: I like JohnWBarber's best; simple and to the point. ATren (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
4. JPatterson (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
5. ChrisO (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   Hipocrite (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I do not sign proposals being used to allege that "in the early stages, the article was being owned by a vocal faction that attempted to censor any mention of a controversy...until recently, when enough NPOV editors became aware of this article to balance out opinion." Hipocrite (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

6. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
7. mark nutley (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Why not shorten in slightly? CRU e-mail and documents controversy?
8. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
9. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Heyitspeter (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Wikispan (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
12. SPhilbrickT 02:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
13. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do.
14. Oren0 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Nsaa (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC) This is fine. It could be shortened even to "Climate Research Unit controvesy" but this proposal will do as JohnWBarber states above.
16. Agree with Nsaa/JohNWBarber on "Climate Research Unit controversy." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
17. Agree with Nasa/JohNWBarber and this if that isn't suitable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Moogwrench (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I will defend "Climatic Research Unit email and documents controversy" or "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy" because an email is a type electronic document.
19. WP looks silly continuing to have the article named as if the supposed hack is the controversy and not what was contained in the info thus made available. I am in favour of anything that makes WP look less stupid. This proposal would help. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
20. WVBluefield (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
21. Evensong (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of the proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Research Unit email controversy

another suitable alternative might be:

Climate Research Unit email and document controversy

Climate Research Unit email and data controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Thanks for the invitation, it would be good to resolve this issue; however, I have difficulty supporting a long title, so I will pass on signing for now. Any title should be supported by the word weight of sources on the topic. Heavy source support will garner greater wiki support. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  Would you be able to support it if we dropped the "and document" leaving just "Climatic Research Unit email controversy" per ATren's suggestion above? I suspect some others may prefer that as well. We can't change the proposal without getting agreement from the signatories above but this is one option that could be proposed to the group. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd be best to drop "email" and leave "document," actually. Both emails and source code are documents, but source code is not an email, and source code is also at issue. The current title used to mention "emails" and the term was dropped for this reason.--Heyitspeter (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from and that's why I decided to include the document. My first choice was just to use email controversy on the grounds that the emails have, in my totally unscientific estimation, received the majority of the press. We could consider either as you suggest but for now let's proceed with what we have since I think it has the widest appeal even though it may be a bit long. Although it's not really that long considering half of it is the name of the institution. --GoRight (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This was a good initiative since it removes what some think is not WP:NPV and WP:UNDUE (Hack) without introducing other problematic title words like Climategate and scandal. Hopefully this title is something everybody can agree on even through the case for Climategate looks stronger for each day running (per secondary sources Climategate usage). Maybe the case for this title first can get hold for everybody the day one of the big university press publish a book about it, with this title (been historic). Nsaa (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Documents should stay in, the e-mails only account for 5% of all documents leaked. How about CRU Document Controversy?

This is why I opted to include both email and document, some people lean one way and other people lean the other. So for broadest appeal albeit at the expense of conciseness we arrived at the current proposal. --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's ok. Not elegant, not consise, but it's an excellent compromise. Last night I was wondering if even CRU is biased to have in the title. This controversy is much broader than CRU. It includes at least Penn State/Michael Mann and others. Nsaa (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What about just "data", or is that considered to be too generic? Tarc (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Several people objected to data in prior conversations so I opted to avoid it. I guess if we really want to shorten it we could try "Climatic Research Unit controversy" but that sounds like the CRU is controversial not what happened. If there was an obvious and well accepted name I suspect that it would already be there.  :) You're welcome to sign too, Tarc, if you find this to be an acceptable compromise and are willing to defend it. --GoRight (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the resistance to using the words "documents" or "data" in between "CRU" and "Controversy"? I don't mean this as a critical remark I'm just curious.--Heyitspeter (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, and this is only a guess on my part, but I suspect the issue is one of focusing on the WP:WEIGHT of the media coverage rather than the distribution of what was released. The emails have simply generated the most media coverage and cover what seem to be the most significant aspects of the release, namely the attitudes of scientists involved (from some people's perspective), possible attempts to game the peer review process (which is contested by some), and the legal aspects of seeking to avoid releasing information based on FOI requests.

The code comments, while not very flattering, encouraging, or professional, are simply comments that could be found in anyone's code where they weren't expecting the code to be released for public consumption. The quality of the code itself may also be an issue but whether it shows any smoking guns, or not, is still controversial. There may be good scientific reasons to justify some of the manipulations we see in the code.

So I don't necessarily see it as resistance to using documents as much as a lack of support relative to email. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, GoRight. I'd love to join in, guys, but I just can't. I'm not happy with the proposal - it doesn't have 'hacking' or 'data breach' in it. I wasn't happy when Heyitspeter removed 'e-mail' from the title without discussion, but no one else seemed to care so I let it be. When the inquiries report what really happened, the we can review the whole article and potentially its title. BTW, hacking is now the accepted WP:RS word for it, and doesn't need scare quotes.[9] --Nigelj (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for taking the time to consider it just the same. --GoRight (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

OK, I went through and canvassed the remaining people who have voted in the RfC as well as a few additional CC regulars. Let's give them a chance to respond but then we may be ready to take this to the talk page. ChrisO and Hipocrite and any other signatories, what do you think? I think we have a pretty decent showing of support here. There are some signatories that have suggested shortening the title even further, possibly all the way back to "Climatic Research Unit controversy". This would avoid any further arguing over email vs. documents vs. data so it may be workable. Should we canvass the existing signatories about proposing this as an alternative or should we just go with what we have? --GoRight (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit controversy, I like this. It covers everything. mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indifferent. Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the flaring of tempers on the talk page, I'm not sure the timing is right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may be right. The current RfC will be inconclusive no matter what so we may actually have to wait until that is closed. Anyway, we can continue to gather support and try one iteration on the naming with those that signed up already while the RfC runs its course. --GoRight (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most people support "Climatic Research Unit documents controversy," as encompassing e-mails but recognizing that other kinds of electronic data were leaked / are in question as well. ScienceApologist alone expressed reservations below, but his concerns appear to have been addressed. EDIT:checked signing board and 5-6 came out in support of the even shorter title you're discussing now. Go for it. I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"I'll propose inclusion of the word "documents" on the relevant talkpage later if appropriate." - Well, the problem with this is that one of the goals of coming together on this proposal is to reduce these regular challenges to the title. If the title we propose is just going to be challenged again by people from within our little coalition then we have failed at making a difference in that respect. So, am I to understand that if we as a group shortened the proposal to just "Climatic Research Unit controversy" that you would no longer pledge to defend that title but rather might seek to have it changed after the fact? I did notice the "if appropriate" which seems sensible enough depending on what you consider to be an appropriate reason to change. What types of conditions would this entail, have you thought that through? I am only asking so that I can factor such concerns into my thinking moving forward. Alternatively, if we keep the title as currently proposed would you be more willing to defend it rather than seek changes after the fact? --GoRight (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be unclear / less than straightforward. I would defend it either way as better than the current and wouldn't attenuate my endorsement, but would prefer the proposed or "documents" versions to their further shortened counterpart. If the shorter version is used, I do mean "if appropriate" as you notice, and would wait to propose a change until or if it seemed constructive given the atmosphere.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why I object to "and document"

From what I understand the "documents" in question were all attachments to e-mails. The undue emphasis placed on these attachments seems to me to be related to a singular obsession by denialists with the idealization that somehow the attachments were "smoking guns" of data manipulation, fraud, or worse. However, I see no evidence of this in the "documents" in question (which are much less numerous than the e-mails in number if not in bytes). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

I guess my question would be, "What is the NPOV rationale for including 'and document' in the proposal?"

I anxiously await anyone's response.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your question, and this is just my opinion as I cannot speak for the group as a whole, is that like it or not there is a reasonable amount of media coverage on the documents in addition to just the emails themselves. WP:WEIGHT therefore demands this this additional POV be given appropriate space in the article and the title, regardless of whether we as editors consider that coverage to be true, or not, since the standard on this encyclopedia is laid out by WP:V which clearly states that verifiability, rather than our interpretation of truth, is the gold standard.

We are likely to consider shortening the proposal to simply "Cimatic Research Unit controversy" which has the benefit of avoiding the whole argument over email vs. documents vs. data altogether. If this should come to pass would you be willing to support the proposal then? --GoRight (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That particular shortening seems ambiguous to me. We need to indicate that it was about internal computer-based communications somehow. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 3,485 documents in 101 folders (149 MB), but only 1,075 emails (7.85 MB). It is not clear which documents (if any) were attachments to the emails. Q Science (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure were you got that from Sa, What makes you think the other doc`s were attachments?

The enumeration of the documents varies from interest group to interest group. The initial reports were that there were something like 78 documents and over 1000 e-mails. I cannot verify that the other "documents" that Q Science is mentioning are the "documents" that most people are referring to. From what I understand, there are only three non-e-mail documents that have generated any interest and really only one that has been extensively commented on (HARRY_README). However, this "document" has been associated with an e-mail exchange that indicates a likely association of the files with the communications. After all, the communications are what people are interested in and have commented on for the most part. At the very least, it is the communication between climate scientists at CRU that has caused interest. The programs and the data files have been essentially ignored by those commenting on this controversy, and so I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall you making this argument on the article talk page, and i posted a great many links which showed the code and data released was also of interest. Did you not see them? mark nutley (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you not see my response? [10]. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@All of you - Given the sensitive nature of this topic please take your sniping elsewhere. I prefer to keep this discussion snipe free. I leave to the individual readers to decide which portions above constitute "sniping". Please put your best feet forward here. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@SA - "I continue to maintain that it is the e-mails and not the documents that are of primary interest." And I haven't disagreed. In fact I have similarly argued that the emails have received the most media coverage and therefore are probably the most significant portion of what was released from a WP:WEIGHT perspective. So I think we are agreed on that point. Where we seem to vary is on whether the documents and other materials have received sufficient coverage to warrant mention. I and others have concluded that they do and so we have included them in the proposal. YMMV and apparently does. The question to you is whether it varies sufficiently that you will let it stand in the way of compromise, or not. This is something only you can decide for yourself. --GoRight (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid it is a deal-breaker for me. I see you've amassed what can only be described as a wide-ranging coalition who are able to come to consensus. I applaud you for that but respectfully refrain from endorsing for the reasons I outlined. Best, ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

As you wish. You are always welcome to reconsider. Thank you for taking the time to make your views and concerns known. --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Out

Collapsed off-topic discussion, that contained a possible personal attack. Scottaka UnitAnode 22:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't sign proposals being used to bludgeon people who disagree with them, but only if those people disagree from one side. Thus, I'm out. Hipocrite (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC) If your support of a name change proposal is so weak that it can be annulled by its being referred to in regards to a name change, then it probably does make sense for you to remove your name from it. In any case, if you (or GoRight) feel like removing this subsection to avoid cluttering the proposal, that'd be nice. An edit summary to the removal of your name would have sufficed.-Heyitspeter (talk) 09:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC) No, sir, I think it's important to note that the reason I'm no longer on board with this is because you - you, Heyitspeter, are using this attempt to reach across the asle to bludgen other editors. Yes, Heyitspeter, the reason that I'm not interested in helping us get what we want is because you are unwilling to gracuously win. Hipocrite (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Unable to discuss with you on your talk page? Are you aware that supporters of your proposal are archiving dissenting opinions on your talk page? For instance, I'm unable to keep "I don't sign proposals being used to bludgeon people who disagree with them, but only if those people disagree from one side. Thus, I'm out." Unarchived. Why is that? Is there really no appitite for dissent? Problematic - it makes it appear that this is actually canvassing. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Note - the next person whop editwars over this sentence will get blocked. This is GoRIght's page. Please don't disrupt it. Spartaz Humbug! 13:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not a supporter of his proposal. In fact, I explicitly declined to support it, though amicably so. You'd do well to stop assuming bad faith of others. I hatted them because they were off-topic, and very borderline as to whether they might be violations of WP:NPA. Additionally, reprinting the off-topic notes that are under the above hat above, and that read very much like accusatory personal attacks isn't your best plan either. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Really, because something I wrote in this section is a personal attack? What, exactly, in this section is a personal attack? Hipocrite (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC) You are claiming that supporters of the proposal (of which I'm not one, though you've left that accusation unstruck, I notice) are acting in bad-faith, only using the proposal to bludgeon people who don't agree with them. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I don't see any statement that they are acting in bad faith. In fact, I think I was explicitly clear that at least one of the participants was just unable to constrain his exuberance at winning - being, as I believe I wrote, "unwilling to gracuously win." Perhaps you've confused "personal attacks," with "comments I don't like." Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC) What you "don't see" is there nonetheless. And you've now reprinted at least a small portion of your personal attacks on HiP. Scottaka UnitAnode 13:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This block has been reported to ANI. Cla68 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, it seems in my real world absence which must continue for a day or so that we have had a small outbreak of hostilities on my talk page. Per Spartaz I will say that I do not appreciate edit warring here. I prefer for people to be able to express their views, and change them if they wish, without having to fight to keep it in. That said I will have to review what has happened here but I don't have time today so it will be tomorrow at the earliest.

I also need to review the status of the RfC and see what makes sense at this point. I apologize for the unannounced outage and hope that this did not contribute to the arguing here. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your email

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

Can someone explain what happened here?

I note [11] which has been deleted from the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident talk page. Now it seems that Nightmote's talk page has also been deleted. Does anyone know why? --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightmote quit, he said simply f*** the lot i`ve had enough. He asked for his talkpage to be deleted mark nutley (talk) 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't know that he had requested it be deleted. You know this for a fact? --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this is in my watch list (Deletion log); 03:42 . . SatyrTN (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Nightmote" (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace)

(Deletion log); 03:41 . . SatyrTN (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Nightmote" (U1: User request to delete pages in own userspace) so i reckon he did ask, i think it was 2/0 round robin posting to so many editors which tipped him over mark nutley (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he did request it. It shouldn't have been deleted - per policy, we don't delete user talk pages unless some major privacy issues are are at stake. Been wondering whether I should undelete the talk page, or wait for someone less "involved" to do it. One of those things where you have to balance "undeletion is correct, per policy" with "why deal with grief when I don't really care" (about whether the page stays deleted or not). Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's why I asked. I know the policy states that the talk pages may be retained, although the right to vanish is also sometimes respected. If he wanted it deleted then I don't have a problem with it. I just wanted to verify that was the case. --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nightmote's talk page has been restored by SatyrTN, and all of the previous content is still visible in the history. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations on your good work, little by little

The Arabs and the Spanish have the same saying, it begins in Arabic, Shweya shweya, in Spanish, poco a poco. Little by little, we go far. Maybe the world is like silly putty, certainly Wikipedia, with emphasis on "silly." Push hard, it resists strongly, but slow down and push gently, it easily is formed. And together many can form what no individual could form. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for Fun

This might be of interest. JPatterson (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks interesting

See [12]. Hope all is well. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jpat and I decided to check in on you at nearly the same time. Funny that. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate change exaggeration

I wanted to let you know that I have just created the new article Climate change exaggeration. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Yes, it seems an interesting topic. I won't be able to assist with the editing of the article itself due to my current probationary restrictions but I will try to do some research and post the results here for your consideration and use. --GoRight (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious behavior

This is the kind of behavior that got you into trouble before.

I won't respond to that comment, partly because it's not really a good idea to respond to that kind of thing, but also because enabling you to get into this kind of mess at this point would be a form of baiting. I won't intentionally respond to any over-argumentative comments by you in future. Take care. --TS 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am confused. How is that tendentious in your mind? I would like to correct that if possible. --GoRight (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have stricken the comment and apologized, [13]. I would appreciate an explanation as to how you feel I was being tendentious for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fair request that deserves a response. I think you're getting a bit circular and I think my tendency to respond to you was driving you into a bad loop.

Here's how I think it went wrong.

• 21:20, GoRight: "those with a history of such practices should be excluded to see if things improve." - And just who gets to be the arbiter of such decisions? You? Me? Excluding people from the debate only fosters discontent and creates more problems in the end. Can't we actually try to find constructive ways of dealing with things rather than proposing bannings? I think you fancy yourself a peacemaker but I fear this particular proposal of yours goes decidedly in the opposite direction from peacemaking. Just my opinion, mind you.

• 21:52, TS: GoRight. please take a look at the log of this probation. There you will see that several disruptive editors have been removed from the discussion. That's one thing this probation was set up to enable.

• 22:55, GoRight: While the log certainly shows that some editors have been removed, I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted which renders your point rather moot, IMHO...

Now I interpreted that as meaning that there was a problem with the administrative actions because not everybody (not least the excluded parties) agreed with them.

• 23:50, TS: By "I don't believe that the neutrality of those removals has been universally accepted" you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action. In other words you just raised a man of straw and bashed the hell out of it. That's timewasting so please stop it.

I could have been less snappish about it, but I was firmly refuting your implied point that universal acceptance of administrative actions was a goal of the probation or had ever played any part in Wikipedia adminship. The probation was set up to let admins sort the problem out, and if you're looking for universal acceptance you don't want head-bashers like that, you want mediators.

This seemed to set you off:

• 02:47, GoRight: "you seem to be ignoring the fact that universal acceptance is not nor has ever been the standard for administrator action" - I never said nor implied any such thing so please take your own advice with respect to men of straw and time wasting.

You went on in similar vein. I can recognise the signs. I'd have found it difficult to respond to your comment politely, and things would have snowballed. I thought it best to come here and comment that I wasn't comfortable with the level it had got to and explain why I thought that kind of response was a danger sign. --TS 03:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"This seemed to set you off" - Please choose you phrasing more carefully, I never "went off". My response was directly on point with your unfounded accusation. I am not wikilawyering here in any way shape or form and making this type of comment is only going to increase the already excessive tension in the current environment. Please do not assume that your cognitive abilities somehow allow you any special insight into what I am actually thinking. Trying to read between the lines is only going to create problems and increase acrimony. Rather than leaping to unfounded conclusions please simply ask for clarification in the future.

"I was firmly refuting your implied point that universal acceptance of administrative actions was a goal of the probation or had ever played any part in Wikipedia adminship." - As I correctly pointed out, I never said nor implied any such thing. This is either a straw man argument you are making or confusion on your part (presumably because I have not communicated clearly). Either way, labeling this tendentious is itself tendentious. Hopefully you can see that. My pointing out that you are using a straw man argument to make a claim that I am making a straw man argument is not tendentious, it is the honest truth and somewhat ironic ... although I now admit that I should have allowed for the possibility that you were simply confused as to my meaning.

Either way I sought in my follow-on response to clarify why I had made the comment I did: because the current set of bannings enacted under the probation is already controversial (i.e. not universally accepted) enacting even more bannings is only going to exacerbate the problem. The proper analogy is to not add more fuel to the fire and this remains good advice. --GoRight (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• GoRight was not tendentious in any way during that discussion. Labeling his contributions there as such just looks, well, silly. The fact that you didn't feel you were going to be able to respond to his last, perfectly acceptable post there politely is your problem, not his, Sidaway.

  With that said, GoRight, engaging with Sidaway is probably not the best course of action, as you're correct that he sets up his own straw men, and then criticizes those whom he perceives to be doing the same. You'd probably do well to try to communicate with actual admins like LhVU and Lar, and to ignore Sidaway. Scottaka UnitAnode 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, at least I'm not totally self-deluded. I'll endeavor to heed your valuable advice. --GoRight (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to explain the problem further. But first, thanks for striking out the inappropriate material.

My identification of your straw man-bashing didn't depend on mind-reading, as you imply. It depended solely on your expressed words. I'd argued that my proposal to exclude trouble-makers was one of the reasons the probation was set up, and I showed you that this had indeed happened already. You said that was moot because it wasn't universally supported. I responded that admin actions didn't need universal support so your attempt to dismiss my point was a waste of time. That's when you blew up. You seemed to think I was making something up; on the contrary I was responding directly to your expressed opinion. Your response was, at best, a non sequitur. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage GR to unstrike it, as there was nothing "inappropriate" about what he wrote, except in your own mind. You need to stop with your accusations now, Sidaway. GR has had his problems in the past. He's not now reverting to them, and you need to stop implying that he is. You're way out of line here. Scottaka UnitAnode 04:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"That's when you blew up." - I repeat, I never "blew up" so I would now ask that you remove that part of your comment or I shall remove the entire comment from this page and we will be done here. I'll gladly respond once you take that pointy stick out of my eye. --GoRight (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I came here to avoid responding to a rant on a probation talk page, so it would be silly to respond to rants here. In my opinion UnitAnode is giving very bad advice. Together we avoided perpetrating an unseemly row over not much on a page devoted to resolving such warlike behavior. For your part in the resolution, I salute you with my gratitude. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 09:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• What he posted at that talkpage was not a "rant" by any definition other than your own. You need to stop calling it that. Scottaka UnitAnode 11:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, it was just a bit uv banter. Rather tendentious, hope policy clarifications will assist. . . dave souza, talk 11:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit muddle headed but this seems rather ambiguous so I am unclear on your meaning. Are you saying that you think I WAS being tendentious, or I was NOT? Could you please clarify? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an outside opinion, I don't feel that the edits was, by itself, tendentious in the slightest, but it had the potential to get moving down that road. Having gone over a large number of edits that have caused you problems in the past, I notice that the pattern that the majority takes involve a series of escalating edits that eventually crosses the line into disruptive. Overall, this is a situation that both parties handled the way we are SUPPOSED to handle disputes around here, I only wish that the other 7200 minor disputes going on right at this moment were handled as rationally. Trusilver 08:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Running

Thank you, and I do understand. Cla68 (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Please consider signing our proposal

Hi GoRight,

I was too busy doing other things on Wikipedia at the time and having to balance that with the other things I have to do. As I'm not so involved with the CRU article, I would have supported any consensus that arises on moving forward, so my vote would not really be so relevant. Count Iblis (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Thanks for getting back to me. I am waiting on the current RfC to be finalized before deciding on how best to proceed. You are still welcome to sign on to show support for this proposal if you are so inclined.  :) --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Some interesting stats that I was curious about.

I was curious about who was most active at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, who was most verbose, and who was most pithy. So I went back and dug out a little tool I used a while back which is found here and ran it for that page including the entire history since it was created. I must say the results of this tool never cease to amaze me as there are always some surprises in the results. See for yourself.

Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement as of 05:07, 27 February 2010

Net Edit Sizes (Bytes) Name Net Edit Size Edit Count Average Net Edit Size Average Words Jake Wartenberg 331 2 165 18 Kauffner 2043 4 510 56 173.101.153.240 1236 3 412 45 2over0 54783 88 622 69 Beeblebrox 609 1 609 67 Short Brigade Harvester Boris 8191 20 409 45 Heyitspeter 36591 102 358 39 Seb az86556 683 1 683 75 209.253.65.90 328 1 328 36 ZuluPapa5 19176 60 319 35 Arthur Rubin 6496 19 341 37 84.72.61.221 1091 7 155 17 118.92.119.227 2026 2 1013 112 Prodego 13000 21 619 68 Atmoz 237 1 237 26 Gwen Gale 2102 11 191 21 Ravensfire 893 3 297 33 MZMcBride 335 1 335 37 Tillman 2109 3 703 78 Cla68 14150 34 416 46 NimbusWeb 15889 33 481 53 Ricky81682 561 2 280 31 DeepNorth 8318 3 2772 308 Dave souza 26749 47 569 63 MastCell 6845 13 526 58 Viriditas 7434 6 1239 137 A Quest For Knowledge 13279 27 491 54 Kenosis 14432 11 1312 145 Prolog 206 1 206 22 Geni 136 7 19 2 Atama 1549 2 774 86 Macai 3535 2 1767 196 JzG 8715 23 378 42 Unitanode 31548 75 420 46 EngineerFromVega 1685 5 337 37 Jpat34721 13220 38 347 38 Jojhutton 543 2 271 30 JohnWBarber 425 2 212 23 Wikidemon 6761 14 482 53 Oren0 4700 5 940 104 Rocksanddirt 672 2 336 37 Jack Merridew -39 2 -19 -2 32.171.47.182 404 1 404 44 Spoonkymonkey 1379 3 459 51 GoRight 26166 52 503 55 Verbal 1038 2 519 57 Vsmith 1531 6 255 28 Mackan79 14035 32 438 48 Pakaran 145 1 145 16 Psb777 5253 18 291 32 Beyond My Ken 198 1 198 22 Tony Sidaway 36504 184 198 22 Jmh649 810 2 405 45 Franamax 600 1 600 66 Alexh19740110 1269 1 1269 141 Guettarda 5166 9 574 63 83.203.210.23 2418 1 2418 268 Bigtimepeace 1985 3 661 73 203.129.61.83 2165 4 541 60 Nigelj 8775 19 461 51 McSly 361 1 361 40 TenOfAllTrades 3372 6 562 62 MalcolmMcDonald 4629 12 385 42 Mathsci 8229 28 293 32 LessHeard vanU 28826 63 457 50 Thparkth 1942 6 323 35 Off2riorob 7514 19 395 43 CaneMyBottom -465 1 -465 -51 Awickert 13521 13 1040 115 Nsaa 17124 34 503 55 Crohnie 3221 3 1073 119 Jprw 2102 5 420 46 Tbsdy lives 461 2 230 25 ChyranandChloe 12943 11 1176 130 ChrisO 31179 96 324 36 69.165.150.81 3594 5 718 79 Hipocrite 42114 83 507 56 Dougweller 1233 6 205 22 Dmcq 10648 29 367 40 Sphilbrick 3140 8 392 43 Troed 3991 7 570 63 Spartaz 418 2 209 23 32.173.243.1 314 1 314 34 Stephan Schulz 18408 51 360 40 32.168.57.210 191 3 63 7 Marknutley 33040 81 407 45 TeaDrinker 1924 5 384 42 Ryan Postlethwaite 1838 5 367 40 166.135.160.248 350 1 350 38 Ling.Nut 975 3 325 36 BozMo 25530 68 375 41 32.173.71.109 289 1 289 32 166.134.226.22 6 1 6 0 JettaMann 759 1 759 84 32.173.35.150 336 1 336 37 NuclearWarfare 4790 15 319 35 Arkon 1520 5 304 33 Ignignot 2048 3 682 75 Scjessey 22298 56 398 44 69.165.159.245 739 2 369 41 DuKu 216 1 216 24 166.134.183.135 465 1 465 51 Arzel 2083 6 347 38 Sandstein 6208 10 620 68 Lar 61155 141 433 48 67.142.163.30 34 1 34 3 Weakopedia 4907 7 701 77 KimDabelsteinPetersen 24064 55 437 48 Nothughthomas 7635 31 246 27 EdJohnston 987 4 246 27 Thegoodlocust 63502 162 391 43 ATren 20999 54 388 43 32.175.112.160 -17209 1 -17209 -1912 Masem 1552 2 776 86 Sirwells 3287 5 657 73 MiszaBot II -851889 17 -50111 -5567 Tasty monster 1519 4 379 42 Gavin.collins 6256 19 329 36 Ludwigs2 1522 3 507 56 William M. Connolley 38802 119 326 36 Jehochman 5871 15 391 43 John 181 1 181 20 ChildofMidnight 26503 46 576 64 Total editors = 123, Total edits = 2494, Average edits per editor = 20.3

Here are the comparable results for the talk page.

Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement as of 20:34, 26 February 2010

Net Edit Sizes (Bytes) Name Net Edit Size Edit Count Average Net Edit Size Average Words 2over0 7211 19 379 42 Short Brigade Harvester Boris 4650 14 332 36 Heyitspeter 3122 6 520 57 Jaymax 675 1 675 75 ZuluPapa5 16342 44 371 41 Arthur Rubin -255 1 -255 -28 Prodego 514 1 514 57 89.168.179.31 551 1 551 61 Cla68 2337 8 292 32 Dave souza 16748 26 644 71 MastCell 6880 10 688 76 DeepNorth 1163 1 1163 129 A Quest For Knowledge 10248 28 366 40 Macai 600 2 300 33 JzG 2539 4 634 70 Unitanode 16452 33 498 55 32.173.162.117 274 1 274 30 Jpat34721 656 3 218 24 Jojhutton 715 3 238 26 JohnWBarber 2856 3 952 105 Wikidemon 5213 4 1303 144 GoRight 11130 20 556 61 Vsmith 1725 4 431 47 Mackan79 11207 15 747 83 67.142.163.24 -26 1 -26 -2 Tony Sidaway 37658 96 392 43 Franamax 1015 1 1015 112 Guettarda 3658 4 914 101 Nigelj 3157 3 1052 116 MalcolmMcDonald 2986 6 497 55 TenOfAllTrades 928 8 116 12 Mathsci 917 2 458 50 LessHeard vanU 20308 20 1015 112 Thparkth 945 3 315 35 Off2riorob 1428 8 178 19 Enric Naval 908 3 302 33 Hal peridol 866 2 433 48 ChrisO 15778 27 584 64 Hipocrite 5477 12 456 50 Dmcq 4349 10 434 48 Sphilbrick 477 1 477 53 SineBot 1203 4 300 33 Stephan Schulz 174 1 174 19 Marknutley 2027 7 289 32 141.157.189.3 1063 2 531 59 Ryan Postlethwaite 4685 9 520 57 32.175.73.195 166 1 166 18 BozMo 5158 7 736 81 Arkon 2044 6 340 37 Scjessey 6723 13 517 57 Arzel 5497 6 916 101 Sandstein 5448 10 544 60 Lar 22350 45 496 55 Cardamon 1791 3 597 66 KimDabelsteinPetersen 5715 10 571 63 TheGreatLocust 6812 19 358 39 ATren 9579 19 504 56 Bertport 607 2 303 33 MiszaBot II -231438 8 -28929 -3214 Tasty monster 724 2 362 40 William M. Connolley 6625 56 118 13 Jehochman 3434 15 228 25 ChildofMidnight 1 2 0 0 Total editors = 63, Total edits = 706, Average edits per editor = 11.2

Make of these whatever you want, I was just curious. Some of the results were what I expected, and others were a bit of a surprise. --GoRight (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an updated version of the script that also computes the average number of edits per editor:

$ cat history.txt | gawk '{ gsub( /[ *()a-zA-Z0-9:]*, [0-9][0-9]* [A-Za-z]* [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] /, "" ); gsub( / [(][a-zA-Z |]*[)] [ m]*[(]/, "|" ); gsub( /bytes.*$/, "" ); gsub( /,/, "" ); split( $0, f, "|" ); if ( NR > 1 ) { t[p[1]] += p[2]-f[2]; c[p[1]] += 1; } p[1] = f[1]; p[2] = f[2]; } END { t[p[1]] += p[2]; c[p[1]] += 1; printf( "{{collapsetop|As of }}\n{| class=\"wikitable sortable\" border=\"1\"\n|+Net Edit Sizes (Bytes)\n|-\n! Name !! Net Edit Size !! Edit Count !! Average Net Edit Size !! Average Words\n" ); for ( id in t ) { printf( "|-\n| %s || align=\"right\" | %d || align=\"right\" | %d || align=\"right\" | %d || align=\"right\" | %d\n", id, t[id], c[id], t[id] / c[id], (t[id] / c[id]) / 9 ); ac += c[id]; ae += 1; } printf( "|}\n\nTotal editors = %d, Total edits = %d, Average edits per editor = %1.1f\n{{collapsebottom}}\n", ae, ac, ac / ae ) }' > table.txt

• Comment What surprised you? To me it looks like I thought it would which was part of what I thought I said. The same people keep bringing things there for sanctions. Oh and for someone ignorant in coding, the last paragraph make absolutely no sense to me, sorry. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"What surprised you?" - Actually, I would rather not comment in detail. Let's just say that TGL and Lar's figures surprised me but TS's figures did not, especially with respect to edit counts. People have complained about me injecting myself into disputes but at under 3X the average number of edits I appear to be neatly tucked into the main pack of typical contributors to the discussion. At a whopping 9X the individual that tops the list seems to stand out especially when you consider he hasn't had many requests against him.

"which was part of what I thought I said" - I don't know what you are referring to. Had you commented on this previously? If so I somehow missed it. Sorry.

"Oh and for someone ignorant in coding, the last paragraph make absolutely no sense to me, sorry." - :) Sorry, I just wanted to keep a snapshot of the updated code. Although, even if you weren't ignorant of coding that little piece of magic incantation will tend to be a write-only piece of code because it does so much with a single command line using a somewhat older tool in the process. --GoRight (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well for whatever reason some people have a compulsive need to respond to my posts and I have a compulsive need to defend myself and others :). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have a compulsive need to have the last word in any thread!  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a dharma vow ... compulsion occurs here Tanha and the 12 links are a valid cure for this and anger. Dealing with OCD myself. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very interesting .. I can be pithy. Next time someone says I don't contribute to the article space with value, maybe you can provide a reference for the User Talk space. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My comment was at the sanction page, don't remember which thread, but it's not important. Just so you know, from what I've seen, which is your page, the sanction page and a couple of talk page comments, I think you are doing good by your word to stay out of things. I see you trying to calm the waters more instead of being part of it. Keep up the good work. I know at times it can be hard not to respond, but keep it up, it's usually a waste of time. At least that's what I'm learning too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but...

[14] Don't bother. He's been making unsubstantiated accusations about me for a while, and I've been keeping track; if it continues I will escalate. But if you get involved, they might twist it into something it isn't, especially after your recent block. The sentiment is much appreciated, however. :-) ATren (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He seems to be implying something with that comment and it is fair to ask that he clarify his meaning. I make no assumption regarding what he is implying so I asked for a clarification. If politely asking for clarifications of ambiguous statements is somehow going to get me in trouble then so be it. This is precisely the type of thing that supposedly had me blocked for three weeks and since I pledged to work to improve the collegiality of these pages and that was considered one of my former transgressions it seems appropriate to pursue it. He may have a reasonable explanation. Let us wait and see. --GoRight (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

MYOB sanctions

Hi there. As User:JzG, User:Mathsci, User:Enric Naval, User:Stephan Schulz, User:Spartaz, User:Ncmvocalist and User:Beyond My Ken have pointed out to you in your "Future Perfect's current block of Abd" WP:AN complaint (and no doubt countless others elsewhere), your history of involvement in others' disputes (like this) may well land you a similar editing restriction to User:Abd's:

Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

In the event that you continue this behaviour I think it is highly likely that myself or another editor will consider taking action. -- samj _in^out 03:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Any editor is allowed to ask for a review of any administrative action. This is all I did. If you feel I have violated some policy please draw it to my attention so that I may correct any problems forthwith. Have a nice day. --GoRight (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because you can request a review does not for one second mean that you should request a review. Abd would have been quite capable of doing the same himself, but it seems that he's more than happy to sit it out. You obviously have a history with Abd and as an observer you have done exactly to his situation as what he did with LirazSiri (that is, created a mountain out of a molehill while drawing the scrutiny to yourself). The block was good, as confirmed by a number of other admins, and I think it would be a sign of good faith if you were to consider backing down from an incident that clearly has a snowflake's chance in hell of being reversed. You feel free to exercise your rights though - just don't be surprised when this advice appears in a request for similar editing restrictions to Abd's. -- samj _in^out 22:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Have I violated any policy, or not, by requesting a review? If so, again, please point it out so that I can correct the situation with all due haste. If not then what business is it of yours if I request a review of a block which has nothing to do with you?

More over, since my request has nothing to do with you why are you here making threats in an apparent attempt to intimidate me? This type of behavior is likely to be frowned upon from a civility perspective. Wasn't your making threats at other editors part of the issue with you and LS? Perhaps a thorough investigation of your contributions would turn up a pattern here. I'm not particularly interested in pursuing such a thing, but given enough provocation, who knows? Something to consider carefully, me thinks. --GoRight (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the block has everything to do with me - not only did I request enforcement but I was the one being compared to a criminal that landed him the block in the first place. Might I ask, what does this block have to do with you? If you constantly alienate other users by being disruptive, particularly with selective hearing, then don't be surprised when you end up turning the community against you. Answering my advice with wikilawyering by asking for specific policies violated is, while unsurprising, unhelpful to your case. Further, by commenting on yet another situation that has absolutely nothing to do with you, with a baseless threat no less, you again highlight the need for such editing restrictions. I have no responsibility to nominate problematic articles for deletion and was prepared to look the other way iff User:LirazSiri stopped being disruptive by uploading problematic images and spamming other articles and categories. -- samj _in^out 07:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Actually the block has everything to do with me" - Actually, it doesn't and it never did. The block was made by FP because he asserts that a specific edit violates Abd's sanction. I disagree and have said as much on his talk page along with my reasons. The edit in question does not mention you at all. Period. So no, you don't have any more interest in this block than any other unnamed party would. Period. Note also that FP raised the discussion of the block in question at RfAr/Clarification (which is again totally unrelated to you) not at WP:AE which makes your claim even less valid that it otherwise would have been.

I assume from your response that you do NOT know of any policies I have violated in asking for a review of the block. Given that we appear to be done here. As with everyone you are welcome to come here to hold constructive conversations. Pursuing this one any further would NOT be constructive, IMHO, so I suggest that we simply move on. If you have other issues besides this one please feel free to bring them to my attention, but further posts on this topic will go unanswered. --GoRight (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me post the block itself (which you quoted) here for your convenience:

With this edit, you have continued exactly the behaviour you were previously warned to stop: discussing the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston. Moreover, you did so in terms that amount to personal attacks, comparing S.J.'s actions to acts of criminal violence ("mugging"; calling S.J. a "mugger"). I don't know what makes you think you are allowed to do these things on the Arbcom page, of all places, when you are forbidden to do them everywhere else. You are not. And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either.

You were clearly warned, by Sandstein and by myself, and several other admins have in the meantime agreed that my warning was justified. You promised to heed the warning, but didn't. I am therefore now imposing another enforcement block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned - continue and either myself or some other editor will certainly take action. If you choose not to WP:HEAR us then there's not much more we can do. -- samj _in^out 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated above additional posts such as this serve no constructive purpose. As such, they are unhelpful in fostering a collaborative editing environment. I kindly request that you stop littering my talk page with your ineffectual and impotent "warnings". I consider making threats in an attempt to intimidate me (and others, apparently) to be a violation of WP:CIVIL and you are hereby advised that any further posts of this nature will be treated as WP:HARASSment and appropriate measures to put an end to it WILL be taken. --GoRight (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You were forum shopping because you brought an arbitration enforcement matter to AN, when you should have brought it to AN. Regarding this, notice that the block was made as the enforcement of an arbitration restriction, so the review of the block had to be brought up at WP:AE. See the bottom of the box at the top of WP:AE "Appeals. Some arbitration decisions provide that appeals against sanctions imposed under the decision are to be appealed to this noticeboard. For such appeals the template {{Sanction appeal}} may be used." Is that clear to you now? Do you understand that, if you disagree with an arbitration-related sanction, then you have to bring it up at AE and not at AN?

P.D.: ufff, that text would only be for the discretionary sanctions in cold fusion, the boilerplate at the top of the case page only says to "report violations of remedies" to WP:AE *checks a few pages* ah, I found WP:AFTERARB "Case enforcement and after the case". Let me see, you brought two complaints to AN: a) that there was no clear violation of Abd's sanction and b) that FP was harassing Abd. The first one was about the arbitration enforcment and you should have raised it at AE or as a request for a clarification (thus the forum shopping because you brought it to AN), the second was a valid concern for AN. Unfortunately, if Abd was really violating his sanction then FP was not harassing him but he was instead correctly applying the closing of the last AE thread (Abd was not blocked because he agreed to no edit more about that dispute, he edited about the dispute so he could now be blocked by FP). You haven't been able to make your case at AN because you didn't clear the block first at AE or at request for clarification. Why don't you wait until arbs reply to the request for clarification? If they say that the interpretation and the blocks were incorrect then you have some ground to stand in to make your complaint. Raising the matter at AN because arbs could comment at the request for clarification was premature. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"You were forum shopping ..." - I am not clear on why you are bringing this up here. You brought it up on the AN page and my response here will be the same as it was there, if the uninvolved admins feel the other venue is more appropriate then they can indicate as much and I will be happy to move it. Thus far (as of the last time I looked earlier today) they have not so indicated. I decline to move it on my own precisely BECAUSE it would THEN be forum shopping. I cannot be forum shopping if I only raised the issue at one forum. If I somehow picked the wrong one, I apologize but it wasn't a conscious intent to do anything other than to ask for an independent review of the block. Please see WP:BUREAU for why my choice, wrong or otherwise, does not matter.

"Let me see, you brought two complaints to AN ..." - No, all I asked for was an independent review of the block. Please don't try to make this into more than it was. I opened the report, responded to a few comments related to it, and have been hands off ever since. I intend to remain that way. I notified FP and the RfAr/Clarification of the AN report and neither has complained. That you and all of Abd's other detractors have piled on in the initial filing is not particularly surprising, but it was not your input I was seeking. I am seeking input from the uninvolved admins. There have been a few responses supporting the block from non-admins but not much else. If nothing shows up in a few days time I'll ask that it be closed. Simple as that. --GoRight (talk) 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that as the unblocker some time ago, this phrasing/activity concerns me ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm taking a look at the issues surrounding your edits today. My schedule has been and continues to be absolutely psychotic. I haven't forgotten about you, just hunting for an hour or so of free time to sit down at my laptop. Trusilver 16:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. I am in no particular hurry and I have been avoiding the areas that TOAT was complaining about. One point on that, though, I believe that the AN thread has pretty much sat long enough. Anyone that was going to respond probably would have by now. So I want to post a comment there that I don't object to the thread being closed by a neutral party at their discretion. Would this be OK even though I agreed to stay away? I would have done it yesterday but decided to err on the side of sticking to my agreement.

I am trying to avoid being contentious and to be more generally supportive of a collaborative editing environment, although admittedly anything related to Abd seems to be viewed as contentious right now, but if you feel that I have been failing in those goals on some general level please let me know and I shall endeavor to address your concerns. --GoRight (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry this has taken so long, as you may have noticed, I've had a lot going on lately. And I wish that even a quarter of it was actual productive work on the project. I've been looking over the edits you have been making and I'm generally happy with what I see. The main problem is have is that you tend to get into a cycle of escalating discussions that eventually circle in on disruptiveness. I don't think that you intend for it to start that way, but you definitely have a tendency to not know when to just throw your arms up and walk away from an argument. I definitely could have done without the AN/I complaint, too. I suggest you stay away from WP:ANI altogether. Have you ever read Dante's Inferno? ANI is the fifth circle of Hell, it's where the wrathful go to attack each other all day and the sullen descend into "a black sulkiness which can find no joy in God or man or the universe." Alighieri might as well have been writing about the incidents noticeboard. I think that overall you are doing pretty good, though I think you should just ask yourself whether or not your comments are going to have a positive effect before you make them. (I'm guilty of that one pretty often myself, I understand) Trusilver 04:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the feedback Trusilver. I am trying to stay away for WP more than I have been which will likely help, and I will make a conscious effort to simply make my points and then walk away without letting things become circular with everyone repeating themselves over and over. I think I have been better on that front but I will try harder. Perhaps I will voluntarily adopt the policy of running my concerns past neutral admins before raising things at AN or ANI or even the Climate Change RfE as a means of getting pro-active feedback to avoid useless arguing. Would it be appropriate for me to seek your advice on such matters, or should you remain more at arms length? --GoRight (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, the AN thread passed into archive oblivion all by itself, which is probably the best outcome for the moment. Thanks for filing it, it shows that the community is not likely to resolve the issue, for the usual reasons, thus avoiding, as far as I'm concerned, further disruption short of ArbComm, where it is possible to contain the damage. (However, I obviously cannot control the continued comment that is taking place here and there, based on no current provocation at all.) Thanks for assisting GoRight, Trusilver, I've been noticing your work. GoRight is an example of why we need SPAs, especially those who are capable of moderating their behavior, while keeping the majority honest. Roughly, SPA = expert, similar to COI. Dangerous, perhaps, if they edit articles contentiously, but invaluable in article Talk if the behavior is within guidelines. Once an SPA is trained (at great expense, mind you!), the remaining problems are mostly on the other side. --Abd (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying GoRight is an expert? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, compared to the average Wikipedia editor. Does that mean he has credentials? Not necessarily. SPAs who have survived tend to become experts if they weren't when they started. "Expert" is also not the equivalent of "scientist." In particular, GoRight, perhaps because of his personal POV, will be more likely than the general case (including experts on the other side) to detect POV imbalance toward uncritical belief in AGW, but he also understands policy and guidelines and will agree on truly neutral text. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, we'll agree to disagree on those points. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what we are agreeing to disagree on. You think GoRight has credentials? You think he hasn't survived? You think he hasn't learned anything? You think he doesn't have a personal POV? You think he's no more likely to detect an error in the MPOV direction than the FPOV one? You think he doesn't understand policy and guidelines (i.e., in terms of familiarity)? What? Response is certainly not obligatory, if that's what you are driving at, Boris, with "agree to disagree." --Abd (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear more about what Boris is driving at. Could I consider myself an expert in the science of climate change? No, but I'm humble like that. I do find that I am better informed than most people I encounter ... including some of the so called climate scientists (who tend to keep their heads buried firmly in the sand). Could I consider myself an expert on the tactics being used on these pages to enforce a certain POV? Absolutely. So the question is more of what is my area of expertise than whether I am an expert, or not. --GoRight (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I am broadening my horizons here at WP so the SPA label is slowly becoming moot and inaccurate. --GoRight (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm humble like that. I do find that I am better informed than most people I encounter ... including some of the so called climate scientists - you have an odd idea of humbleness. By you are vague about the so called climate scientists: care to name names of the people you are more expert than? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Better informed than" != "more expert than", although I understand that the distinction may be lost on some. The former has to do with having a broad base of knowledge whereas the latter has to do with having in-depth knowledge of a very narrow topic. As you know, Climate Change as a whole is NOT a very narrow topic but climate scientists are only experts in their very narrowly defined subjects of expertise.

As for naming names, I see no utility in doing so as it was a general comment, not a specific one, and I had no individuals in particular in mind when I made it. I wasn't meaning you if that is what you were fishing for. "You're so vain, I bet you think this ..." (Song reference). --GoRight (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) For the record, I don't think that [15] is a violation of my editing restrictions because this is not a "William Connolley related page", but just in case ...