Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 5 April 2009

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 2

Raul's Attack Page

• User:Raul654/GoRight
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Raul654/GoRight

Users Requesting to be Informed of Topics of Interest

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

• User:Abd

Request for participation in User:Abd/RfC

Because my participation as a Misplaced Pages editor has been questioned, and if I continue as I have in the past, I can expect future challenges as well, I have begun a standing RfC in my user space, at User:Abd/RfC. There is also a specific incident RfC at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. I understand that you may not have time to participate directly; however, if you wish to be notified of any outcome from the general or specific RfC, or if you wish to identify a participant or potential participant as one generally trusted by you, or otherwise to indicate interest in the topic(s), please consider listing yourself at User:Abd/RfC/Proxy Table, and, should you so decide, naming a proxy as indicated there. Your designation of a proxy will not bind you, and your proxy will not comment or vote for you, but only for himself or herself; however, I may consider proxy designations in weighing comment in this RfC, as to how they might represent the general community. You may revoke this designation at any time. This RfC is for my own guidance as to future behavior and actions, it is advisory only, upon me and on participants. This notice is going to all those who commented on my Talk page in the period between my warning for personal attack, assumptions of bad faith, and general disruption, on August 11, 2008, until August 20, 2008. This is not a standard RfC; because it is for my advice, I assert authority over the process. However, initially, all editors are welcome, even if otherwise banned from my Talk space or from the project. Canvassing is permitted, as far as I'm concerned; I will regulate participation if needed, but do not spam. Notice of this RfC may be placed on noticeboards or wikiprojects, should any of you think this appropriate; however, the reason for doing this in my user space is to minimize disruption, and I am not responsible for any disruption arising from discussion of this outside my user space. Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

State of Fear

Hi there again. When you have some time, can you drop by the Talk page of the Michael Crichton's State of Fear article. May be you can give us a hand. Read the more recent discussions (last two weeks). See you around.--Mariordo (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Since M knows you better then I do I just second that request on his good word on your input --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi, this is just to let you know that today I created the new article An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming. I though you might be interested in collaborating to improve it (the criticism section is still missing) or just to follow it up.-Mariordo (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this and the notice above. I am quite busy in my day job right now so don't have a lot of time for Misplaced Pages in the foreseeable future, but when I have some time I will take a look at both. --GoRight (talk) 03:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please tone down on your POV...

I've reverted you here. Per WP:SOAP. I suggest that you keep your personal point of view, as well as your name-calling (AGW scientologists) to some other forum. This is not a good way to start up again, after a pause. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've restored my comments and I'll thank you to leave them alone. You are hereby informed that you are not welcome to exercise any editorial control over my commentary, thank you very much. --GoRight (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really a good start to break wikipedias rules and guidelines, on your first edit in a long time, is it? Have you forgotten that personal attacks such as calling others "AGW scientologists" isn't allowed? But be my guest, if you are trying to invite trouble. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To whom does "AGW scientologists" refer? What wikipedia user is being attacked here? --GoRight (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the personal attack again. If you re-add it or continue with the inflammatory remarks and personal attacks you will be blocked. Vsmith (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? Precisely to whom does "AGW scientologists" refer? It is a general term referring to no one in particular. --GoRight (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a broad attack against any climate scientist and/or wiki editor seen by you as supportive of AGW. That kind of intentionaly inflammatory remark has no place in civil discussion on a Misplaced Pages talk page. It's the kind of remark a radio talk show host would use to get attention and raise ratings. This ain't no talk show, so stop the inflammatory rhetoric. Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate here (as I have done below) that I am not directing that term at any of my fellow wikipedians. A broad swipe at prominent AGW scientists? Sure, but that is not a WP:NPA violation. If it were so, many of my AGW supporting colleagues would have been blocked for personal attacks on the AGW skeptics long ago. --GoRight (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have restored your improperly deleted comment. It is a factually correct statement which is neither an attack, nor directed at a wikipedia user who would be protected under WP:NPA. You too are hereby informed that you are not welcome to exercise any editorial control over my commentary. I will thank you to leave my comment alone. --GoRight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would you use the phrase if you don't know to whom it refers? A "scientologist" is a someone who follows Scientology, the controversial religion started by L. Ron Hubbard. I have no idea what Scientology or particular scientologists think about global warming. In other words, I don't know who "AGW scientologists" are, but it certainly sounds like an insult, and it does not appear to be relevant to any polite discussion of global warming. I can see how it could be considered an attack on the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Vsmith and Kim D. Petersen also apparently consider your criticism of an individual scientist to be a non-constructive attack on that individual (that probably violates our policies on what we can say about living people). I'd need to look into both of these issues in detail to figure out if they actually violated policy about personal attacks and sourcing all statements about living people, but they weren't constructive. It would be much more constructive for you to specifically mention facts and sources supporting a specific change you want on the article.

In other words, while I'm not sure if your comments should be blocking offensives, they aren't constructive (and making purely nonconstructive posts is, eventually, a blocking offense). In some cases, a discussion of different scientists' funding sources, policy opinions, and career trajectories could be relevant, but this type of discussion would need to be based on sources and would need to address a specific source used in the article that could be unreliable because of a conflict of interest. - Enuja (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of who the scientologists are. My usage here merely expresses that I hold the opinions of the AGW promoting scientists in the same regard that I hold scientology as a religion. In that respect you have all caught my meaning. I am not, however, directing that comment at any specific identifiable individuals and, consistent with WP:NPA, I am most decidedly NOT directing it at any of my fellow wikipedians.

As for being constructive or not, I am merely supporting the views of the other contributers who initiated the respective threads on the talk page. Contributing to the discussion and bringing alternative perspectives into that discussion is constructive in and of itself. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying "scientists who publish on global warming are like scientologists" is not constructive. If you have a specific criticism of a specific scientist, that could be constructive. I honestly can't imagine how a criticism of the concept of peer reviewed literature could be constructive, unless it were on the appropriate policy page. Maybe that's just my lack of imagination, however: I encourage you to come up with constructive ways to add alternative perspectives into active discussions. Calling scientists scientologists, however, is just name-calling, and is not constructive. - Enuja (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

At this point I will just say, thank you for your input. --GoRight (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

By the time I submitted my reply to this edit of yours, William M. Connolely had deleted it. If you want a your comment to stand (and you think that the section is recent enough and active enough to merit a reply), I'd suggest you say that the current article organization promotes the perspective supporting the anthropogenic causes of and significance of recent warming. To claim that this has been done purposely to support AGW is an attack on all of the editors who support the current organization. Also, the whole scientology part is still name-calling, and therefore inappropriate. The response I had typed and tried to submit only addressed the part of your post that I considered constructive, and went like this...

While GoRight is entitled to their opinion, Paleoclimatology and Geologic temperature record are both linked at the top of this page. The broader perspective is not being hidden from Misplaced Pages readers. Instead, editors are trying to follow the article size guidelines and have subdivided related subjects into a large number of articles. The Climate change article is also relevant, and the subject infobox that is at the bottom of this and other related articles is also a helpful guide to finding related articles. - Enuja (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

A fair and resonable response. I shall stand corrected on this point. Thanks for your input. --GoRight (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption warning

In light of your persistant disruption even after your the imposition of the community sanctions on you, this is your final warning -- any further disruption by you, in any form, on any global warming related article (or talk page, or the talk page of any participant on those articles) will be met with blocks. Raul654 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruption? What disruption? All of my edits to articles are well within wikipedia policies and norms of conduct. The community sanction does NOT prevent me from contributing to global warming pages, as you well know. Nor does it have anything whatsoever to do with my being "disruptive", again as you well know.

Nice Misplaced Pages:Attack page, though. As an administrator I would have thought you knew those were verboten. And I see you have been keeping it for months while WP:Hounding me. I guess you don't care much about policy, though, eh?

You are hereby notified that further postings by you on my talk page will be considered WP:HARASS. --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for continuing disruption on the global warming related articles despite numerous warnings. Raul654 (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): As already pointed out by User:Sandstein at User:Raul654's talk page there seems to be no reason for a block. Even having been asked to give a valid block reason, none has been provided. Also, it appears User:Raul654 blocked User:GoRight despite the fact that he was involved in the content dispute himself (, ). Taking all this into account, this block seems to be questionable and not quite appropriate. Request handled by: — Aitias // discussion 02:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have requested Raul654 to comment, and he has done so at User talk:Raul654#Unblock request of GoRight. As noted there, I remain not entirely convinced of the merits of this block. Its review by more admins might be helpful.  Sandstein  23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank both of you for your attention to this matter. I find that I am still blocked, however, because of an autoblock on my IP address. I don't know if this is simply a delay of some sort in effecting the unblock or whether there is some additional action which must be taken with regard to the IP block. I would greatly appreciate any additional assistance you can provide. --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I have lifted the autoblock already. Therefore you should be able to edit again. — Aitias // discussion 02:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. All seems to be working again. --GoRight (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Community ban

I have resumed discussion of a community ban for GoRight here Raul654 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and warning

Thanks for your greetings. It wasn't easy by any means.

As for recent events, please stay focused on content; you shouldn't attack other participants on talk pages even if you do think they're biased. I also urge you not to revert articles (at least not until a day has elapsed, anyway). I hope that you can become a model of verifiability—using only unimpeachable high-quality sources. I know it might seem unfair to you, but you absolutely must do a better job. I have confidence that you can. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and help in the past, as well as here today. --GoRight (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And congratulations on surviving that assault at WP:AN. Steady on. If in doubt, ask. Do not be the Lone Ranger. If you intend to challenge an administrator, ask another admin for advice first. Take things one step at a time. An edit to an article is almost never an emergency; if you think you might revert, do it tomorrow, not today, and Talk about it and don't make edits against consensus, period, even if the consensus is blatantly biased. Fix the bias by going through WP:DR one step at a time. It's amazing, sometimes, what can be accomplished by the first few baby steps in this. Seek consensus. Keep you nose clean, and, of course, don't take any wooden nickels. Be nice. Let's see, how far should I go? --Abd (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:) Thanks for the advice. It is good advice, as always. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Global warming

Just noticed that you had responded - but that your comments where removed.

To answer some of it. The article doesn't refer to the starting point of the data - it refers to the end of the first year of the data. Just one arbitrary point.

Whats special about Jan 1? Is it sea-ice max? Min? is it an average? Does it, in fact, in any way have any relevance? I'll answer that for you... No it doesn't. Someone looked at the data, and saw an interesting coincidence, and made a blog posting that has no scientific meaning what so ever. Its a "man bites dog" story.

Arbitrary points on any graph doesn't have a relevance in science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I will not revert the comments in preference for having someone else do it. Unless you are likewise of the opinion that those comments constitute vandalism I would appreciate you taking the initiative to restore them. I assume that the vandalism claim was some sort of a mistake, but if not I will have to escalate the issue.

I am basically done with this point. No one is claiming that there is anything special about Jan 1 as you seem to think. Whether you pick Jan 1, April 1, or whatever it doesn't matter. But given the seasonal variations you DO have to compare apples to apples in terms of time of year and using the same date within each year satisfies that requirement.

Whether coincidental or not, the simple fact still remains that the global sea ice levels (as defined by observable surface area which is a commonly used measure) is roughly comparable today to what it was at the same time of year in 1979. Are you really disputing this simple fact? --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would i dispute it? Have i done so anywhere? My only comment here was to say that it was a cherry-pick - which it was. The interesting question is, why are we discussing what is (quite obviously) a cherry-pick? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no particular advantage to having selected that date that I can discern from looking at the actual graph of the data, and the graph itself provides the rationale for the data selected (which by its very nature cannot be a cherry pick). I still fail to understand why you consider the graph in question as being biased for having selected January 1979 as its starting point when the graphs in the article that you support have also selected that very same starting point. In both cases the rationale had nothing to do with selecting a particularly advantageous data point and everything to do with utilizing the entire dataset. I honestly don't see why you would consider the selection biased in one case and not biased in the other.

But there is nothing further that will come of this point so let us simply agree to disagree, as is our norm. --GoRight (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that you've understood the cherry-pick yet. It's not 1 Jan 1979 that was chosen (the start of the record) - but Jan 1, 1980, which is an arbitrary point in the record. You seem to agree that individual days aren't interesting in sea-ice data - so why argue about a blog posting that quite explicitly is trying to make a point out of comparing two arbitrary points?

The trend in sea-ice is quite clear from the data and the graph: Its falling. And the explanation is simple: The Arctic is loosing more than the Antarctic is gaining - so the total is falling. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I was confused about the 1979 vs. 1980 as you noted. Indeed, as the record shows there are a great many examples of years that end around this level of sea ice. Even 2007 was close to this. But looking at the graph and noting the obvious dip in the anomaly from roughly 2004 through 2006, you honestly don't think the fact that the year end levels having "returned" to roughly what they were for the most part pre-2004 has any significance? I guess if we only consider the averages for the entire year in each case it would still be low, though, for 2008 which is your point.

It seems we have beat this dead horse sufficiently at this point. Thanks for the clarification. --GoRight (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What editors want to see on Talk:Global warming

About this edit of yours, specifically "Can you please reconcile these two positions for me, if you can? I am sure that other editors on this page would be interested in the response as well in the interests of avoiding WP:NPA violations all around.". I completely agree with you that calling attacks on the reality of global warming and long discussions related to the issue "trolling" is absolutely uncivil, and I do think it counts as a personal attack. However, that doesn't mean I (or very many other editors) would be at all interested in reading anything about this issue on that talk page. This is because any attempt at a reconciliation of the two positions and pointing out incivility or personal attacks are extremely off-topic. Personally, I wish several regular contributors were much more civil on that page. But I don't think it's constructive to discuss the issue on the article talk page. In fact, as the civility policy says, it's usually much more effective to discuss issues of civility on user's talk pages than on article talk pages.

To summarize: my point is that even though I agree with you, I vehemently disagree that discussing it on the talk page has any possibility of being useful or a good idea. - Enuja (talk) 02:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can appreciate your perspective, however under my own personal circumstances I am reluctant to take this issue to the talk page of the original author of that thread. In addition, even if I had done so the discussion would have missed 90% of the audience that needs to be involved in it. You are well aware that this issue is not simply a dispute between two editors. You are also aware that this issue very clearly applies to the nature of the community atmosphere on that talk page, and as such it also affects the over-all quality of the article itself and is therefore appropriate material for that page.

As for the number of other editors who would, or would not, be interested in having this discussion on that very page I think that you are mistaken. I believe that there are a reasonably large number of other editors who would be interested. They would be the very ones being referred to as "trolls" in that context. While I speak on their behalf, I certainly don't count myself among them as I certainly don't think of myself as being one.

If you believe that the section itself is improper, however, perhaps you would like to simply delete the entire thing from the viewable record as being unrelated to improving the article ... a common practice which is employed on a regular basis by those who would use the term "trolling" against their ideological opponents. I wouldn't object. --GoRight (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Argument with JzG

GoRight, what do you do when someone raises a series of ridiculous arguments? Keep arguing? We have, here, some fascinating proposals. Rothwell is to be banned because he is somehow associated with Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn supposedly brought Rothwell's fringe views to Misplaced Pages, never mind that this is an active field with books being published, etc., including Storms' most notable work, and many people who think that LENR is real, and as fringe views go, Rothwell isn't particularly. Nor is Pcarbonn. No, you don't keep arguing, it can come to be considered harassment. JzG has the right to be as silly as he wants on his Talk page. However, he made a bad block, he did not go to AN for approval, and there seem to be no end of editors who will confidently assert what they vaguely remember and didn't understand in the first place, in the face of people who just read the evidence today and have been focusing on it for days. Typical. So we did our first job: ask him to unblock, with a sufficiently clear argument. Next step? Well, the obvious one is to ask for help. It might be on AN, but that is a hot medium, not given to sober reflection and consideration. Still, I might do it. I'd rather find a mediator. I'm also going to compile the evidence that will be needed. I am *not* trying to "get" JzG, but it appears that he's not taking the problem of admin action when involved seriously; the involvement warps his judgment, he's become habitually uncivil with unnecessary assumptions of bad faith, splashed about with little caution. Newbies get bit, among other things. Looks like he may have blocked IP that wasn't Rothwell's on the assumption, I suppose, that if it supports Cold fusion, must be Rothwell.

By the way, he seems to be becoming vaguely threatening. Watch out. Do not pursue him. I haven't been. It finally occurred to me today to look at his contributions. I haven't been tracking him; rather, I've just been looking into Cold fusion and related. Then, when I found he blocked Rothwell IP, I looked at his block log, that's all. I think I also commented on another abrupt block that was brought to my attention by a user. That's about to change, since it's becoming necessary to gather evidence. I'd hoped to avoid that. --Abd (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: James Hansen

Thanks for the heads-up, and the support. Basically, I lost the fight re the tagged para., and don't have the inclination to fight it again. I'll support you if you care to try for better balance there. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

NP. I agree with you on the issue in question but in the grand scheme I guess there are bigger issues to be dealt with. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware that it was being swept under the rug in case you cared to pick it back up. Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly

Doesn't look bad to me, all things considered; there is a bit of coverage about the suit. I thought it was a little bit of a SYN problem, but your proposal seems to be an even bigger SYN problem to me. Do let me know about future BLP incidents though.

Incidentally, don't do this. Users are given a lot of deference in their own user space. If you like, you could start a similar page about Raul654 in your space. Make sure that it has some heft to it (cite everything conservatively with diffs, and avoid even slightly inflammatory language), otherwise it might be deleted as an attack page. Cool Hand Luke 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. On the inflammatory language, you're right of course. Better to take the high road even when those around you don't.

I am actually curious why you think my proposal has a SYN problem, though. As far as I can tell I am merely reflecting what the sources I have provided actually state. Where's the SYN problem in that? From a WP:V perspective having them Raul use the way back machine to look at archived versions of something and drawing their his own conclusions sure seems like WP:OR to me. I'm not relying on anything like that. --GoRight (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The version that tried to define when he says "one of the first" as opposed to "the first" seemed like an original distinction to me. Sources show that he's said both.

You are right that the wayback machine thing was OR, and Raul's proposal to actually write that they were "modified" subsequent to the lawsuit was way over the line. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to qualify: The WBM link was to convince GoRight that it wasn't just unsubstantiated claims by people who didn't like Ball. Ball really was this foolish. The "one of the first" (warn: OR) is also very dodgy, it has to be based on a very large "first" category... Which is probably the reason that Ball doesn't use this description anymore either. While i sympathize with GoRight that some of the people on the sceptic side are unreasonably put into a box (of fossil-fuel stooges etc). This is a bad one to back.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"Just to qualify: The WBM link was to convince GoRight that it wasn't just unsubstantiated claims by people who didn't like Ball. Ball really was this foolish." - Upon rereading this a second time I think a clarification is needed here. I here by accept, acknowledge, and agree that in the discussion of this topic found here it was never KDP's intent to include WP:SYN into the article and his WBM links were purely for illustration purposes only. My comment was based on Raul's WP:SYN use of those links to draw his own conclusions which he then inserted into his proposal, and my original comment above has been corrected to reflect this nuance. --GoRight (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I finally waded through the court papers like you suggested. On the one hand I certainly agree that the statements made by the parties in the defense paint a rather bleak picture for Mr. Ball, and if true I would have to agree with your assessment. On the other hand, these are merely preliminary statements made as a prelude to a trial. They could have said anything in those statements and their having made them does not necessarily make them true. Johnson could have claimed to have had carnal knowledge of the Queen of England, but since the court never ruled on the validity of the claims they remain just that, claims and opinion. So even though I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements made by Johnson in this case, those statements should only be attributed as his opinion in the article. Would you agree?

I will say that if we were to accept as established fact, as I am sure that you do, that all of Johnson's claims are correct that the current text truly is a WP:NPOV representation of the situation. I just don't think that we can rely on these court papers to establish anything more than the opinions of those involved because the court never ruled either way, right? Or did they? --GoRight (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the other thing. Court documents are primary, but the stages of the suit got enough coverage that the whole section seems more-or-less kosher. Like I said on the talk page, I'm impressed there aren't a lot of SYN problems in the article. They're often shoehorned into the articles on skeptics. In this case, the statements can probably be reliably sourced from some combination of cited sources, and I think substance matters more than style.

You're right that the article could do a better job of explaining that these bullet points were asserted by Johnson in his letter/defense, but it's not too far off the mark. If you add a few words to make it clear, I doubt anyone would mind. Cool Hand Luke 04:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. My very original edit did say, "subsequently" I guess based on the dates of the articles. So I see your point. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't poke the bear

. This is just asking for trouble. For the record, I do agree that this user didn't do enough in that one edit to reasonably conclude that it's Scibaby (though this and this are pretty damning, and the latter was blocked as a scibaby sock), and I do agree that the reaction of undoing a user's first edit and calling them a sockpuppet without proof is WP:BITEy, but you really shouldn't be provoking this situation. Oren0 (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Had it been only one edit - then no one would've noticed. It was on the 4th or 5th that it became rather clear, especially when comparing the edits to Xyize's corresponding ones.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And he was just confirmed a sock of Scibaby - with a backup drawer of 14 sleepers... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

But of course he was. How do we know? Because Raul has said so. Where's the proof? Oh, I can't show you that, just trust me.

Given that he has been trying to accuse me of being a sock master and a WP:MEAT for Scibaby just because I adopted a couple of the points the sock made I certainly know first hand just how trust worthy Raul is on these things. I mean read his descriptions on his WP:ATTACK page and then the diffs in context. He's lying through his teeth. The only reason I haven't asked to have the page deleted is because of how damaging this page is to his own credibility.

For example, he just baldly asserts that this edit was made by Scibaby. It was made by an anonymous IP. And then he tries to claim that I was knowingly supporting Scibaby when I adopted the point being made? BS.

It's total BS and everyone can see that. So if he is willing to do that, why should we take his word for anything related to checkuser since he doesn't have to show any proof? I mean I'm not seriously accusing you guys of anything but the point is still valid, how do we know that you (as a group) aren't just accusing everyone with a skeptic's POV on AGW of being Scibaby and having Raul declaring it to be so? How about some independent oversight here?

Scibaby is starting to look more and more like the Dread Pirate Roberts There are far to many of them to be just one person. --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. In this instance it was Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} who actually made the declaration of this editor being a sock. --GoRight (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)