Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hersfold (talk | contribs) at 04:27, 21 July 2009 (→Your recent comment: reply, apology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Note for Raul:

I'm still around but it is nice to see that you do intend to (eventually) follow policy with respect to attack pages. I'll not hold my breath, though, until you actually delete the page (which in and of itself is only symbolic on your part anyway since you can easily restore it any time you want).  :) --GoRight (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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. Exaggerating things to a point which requires a willful suspension of disbelief to consider them valid. 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)

GoRight, please redact even further, and apologize, unless you are prepared to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Raul654 was "lying through his teeth." Do this before you make one more edit to anything. Even implying that an editor is lying can get you blocked faster than you can say "personal attack." So, even if you are personally convinced of something like this, don't even hint at it, assume good faith, even if you have to grit your teeth. And I mean really assume good faith. I've seen nothing to make me think that Raul654 has lied about anything; if you have evidence of this, you'd deal with it with back-channels, probably directly with ArbComm. Or else you will be toast. Absolutely, don't poke the bear unless you are ready to take on a bear. No judgment about bears is involved here. They simply are what they are. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I can dig up multiple places on article talk pages where he has directly called me a liar. But your point is well taken.

Under WP:AGF I have redacted my original statement and replaced it with perhaps a more accurate description. But there is no doubt that bad blood exists between us given his on-going vendetta. I fail to see why he is allowed to maintain his pointy stick, though. In and of itself his continued posting of clearly non-neutral descriptions and commentary concerning the diffs he has included should be considered harassment. It is one thing to maintain a simple evidence page with references to specific diffs ... I have no problem with that ... but his descriptions are clearly not neutral (as they should be) in what is supposed to be an evidence page.

And what's up with the whole JzG evidence page you maintained? You were forced to delete it or take action within a specific period of time. Where is the action that Raul is supposedly taking with his? Is he planning to open an RfC? An Arbcom request? I seriously doubt it given the "evidence" he has available to him on that page. He has been compiling this for months and all he uses it for is to make inflammatory statements as a means of harassment. I would create one of my own about him as Cool Hand Luke mentioned above, but I see no reason to sink to his level by violating the clear intent of WP:ATTACK. --GoRight (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The worst thing the bear can do is to lead you to imitate him. The bear is bigger than you are. He can poke you, but if you poke him, he will eat you for lunch. If you are going to shoot the king, don't miss. Now, we don't have a king here, or, more accurately, he's passive and mostly stays away. Managing bears is difficult, but surely not impossible. It was silly for JzG to MfD my evidence page, totally useless, he was shooting himself in the foot, and then he tried to MfD the RfC, which was jaw-dropping funny. Funny, that is, if I didn't sense pain behind it. And, in any case, I would hate to be in a position where I wanted to erase an accurate description of my activities. I've done quite a few embarrassing things in my life, and the fastest way beyond it is to face it and not hide from it. If you are doing nothing wrong, don't worry about Raul's page. If the page is biased, your defense is Special:Contributions/GoRight. If the latter page is an indictment, as it is for some editors, and all that is necessary to get sanctioned is to present it, then the problem isn't the page, it's the behavior. They are coming out of the woodwork, GoRight, walking right into the light where we can see them, revealed. Don't they know that they can be seen? You can tell the differences between editors who are good-faith supporting JzG and those who are using the opportunity to grind axes. I think it's possible someone will try to intervene in a positive way, there are noises starting to happen that way. The question will be whether JzG is too committed to change direction and listen to good advice when it starts to come from his friends. Actually, I was his friend, though not close enough, I suspect. It would need to be someone JzG might trust. I wonder if he'd trust Raul? GoRight, you seem to know him, maybe you could ask him to help JzG out? --Abd (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, about compiling an evidence file on someone not for immediate use. I don't recommend it, on-wiki. I did it once, with Allemandtando, who was a sock of Fredrick day. It was, again, a list of edits without negative commentary. Alle railed about it, put a notice on his Talk page that editors leaving comments there should be aware they were being watched, etc. Eventually, he filed an MfD. Which forced me to research more deeply, I uncovered the glaring sock evidence, as he was demanding that I put up or shut up, I put up. An SSP report and Checkuser request, and he was gone. But Fredrick day was playing a game. He didn't care if Allemandtando was exposed, Fredrick day himself is a sock of a long-time user who knows exactly how the system works, knows how to avoid checkuser detection, and probably has other socks as well. In other words, Allemandtando was expendable, a minor asset, and that he left those who supported him swinging in the wind, he doesn't care at all. I have suspicions, but until and unless I decide both that the evidence is unimpeachable and it would benefit the community to reveal the identity, I'm not going to reveal it (and its probable that this would go directly to ArbComm. Besides, my memory is bad, I literally don't know who I settled on, using the analytical techniques I developed, I'd have to look back. As part of the process, I looked at a pile of editors, and I had to check anyone I wanted to consult about the techniques, etc. But, shhhh..... it's sekrit. My point? I compiled the evidence file on Allemandtando both for my own use, for notes, and to let him know that what he was doing was visible. It may have restrained him for a while, maybe not. Remember, he didn't really care.

But the JzG evidence file was different. It was compiled on request by a reputable editor to back up statements I'd made at ArbComm. It's interesting to see the similarity, though, that the attempt to remove led to further process. And now I will reverse my practice of writing whatever I think of and shut up. --Abd (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026

Has anyone pointed out Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nrcprm2026 to you? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just you, thanks. I'm not worried because I am not a sock. My IP should be pretty stable for the most part, although I do blog from different locations at times. I am quite confident that if there were anything actionable from checkuser against me that Raul would most certainly have taken advantage of it by now. --GoRight (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

CF and Nature

In case you missed it (it wasn't there for long) I commented on the will-nature-publish it question William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Cold fusion. Thank you. Verbal chat 15:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? In what way have I not assumed good faith? --GoRight (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming conspiracy is not assuming good faith. Verbal chat 15:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What do the words "I allege none" mean to you? --GoRight (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

They mean nothing, as you made the accusation. For an analogy, putting "no offence intended" does not negate the offence. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now, thanks. Verbal chat 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I fear you do not understand the English language then as the meaning is plain. Either way, go in peace. --GoRight (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You have again breached WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Please comment on edits, not editors, and if you must comment about the editor or his restrictions, take it to either WMC or Hipocrite's talk page. I and others have no interest in reading it, and it does not improve the article or atmosphere. Further WP:DISRUPTION or WP:BAITing could lead to you being censured, which I'm sure we'd all like to avoid. Verbal chat 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Where was I baiting anyone? --GoRight (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Be have or be blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical, the above. Much fuss about alleged incivility. No diff. I'll have to guess. GoRight, it helps to remember that ArbComm is watching. Not now, but later. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Perhaps but unlikely by you. Given our prior history and my current topic ban I doubt you could make a convincing case of being uninvolved. What is the problem, perhaps other than the venue, with my reminding H of what he claimed just 1 day ago? And what is your reaction to this current turn of events? I admit his edit was innocuous, but you blocked Abd for arguably less. --GoRight (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that the goal posts are now being slowly moved one small step at a time, . Hmmm. Sure does make one think about the original intent of this whole edit warring, protecting, banning, blocking, unbanning drama and how it is playing out in the end. It is almost like it could have been foreseen. Like they said on Battlestar Galactica, this has all happened before ... and it will all happen again. --GoRight (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd agree that the talk page of Cold fusion isn't the place to play out this drama. As to Hipocrite's proposed edits, even though I opposed his unban, one might realize that if he makes non-contentious edits that simply clean up the article, and don't do things like remove items from the bibliography that other editors might want to be there, it's fine. Unlike some, I don't believe that noncontentious edits violate bans, an opinion which WMC used to hold quite firmly, but apparently changed his mind after seeing me make a one-character correction to a reference. Self-reverted, to boot, to show awareness of and respect for the ban and merely to be an efficient way of suggesting a change. Please don't make accusations against other editors unless they are necessary for an ongoing process or to explain what's happening to those who may do something about it. --Abd (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This non-contentious edit certainly didn't violate any ban. The self-reverting thing just appears to show awareness of bad faith - that's the impression it leaves. I'll be going again now, bye. Verbal chat 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor was my reminding H of what he said just a day before to get himself unbanned uncivil or baiting. It merely recounted the facts. I admit that my choice of venue was inappropriate which is why I have chosen not to revert my comment that was subsequently removed. --GoRight (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) @Abd: For the record and as I have made plainly clear in my edits directly, I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am merely observing and commenting on the potential implications of things that are happening around me. Other observers are welcome to come to their own conclusions in these matters. --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

my current topic ban - sorry: I may not have been paying attention. Which topic ban? What is the problem - as I said: the problem is that you were making non-constructive comments which had nothing to do with improving the page. To expand: there is quite enough talk there already, and problems staying on topic. If you have questions about H's editing, use his talk page. what is your reaction to this current turn of events? - you've lost me. Which events? Be aware that the revision to H's ban is this and no more. If you have complaints about H's editing, then you may do as I asked and inform me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ah, I think I've understood some of your confusion. You might be under the impression that the promises made around here are relevant. They aren't. I would have noted them as conditions for unban had they been William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"You might be under the impression that the promises made around here ..." - Fair enough, I guess. Making as a condition of unbanning H from Cold Fusion that he not edit Cold Fusion would be sort of pointless, I suppose. But declarations of wanting to focus on other unrelated things and having no further interest in editing Cold Fusion ring sort of hollow when you are right back there the very next day. But maybe it's just me. I have no axe to grind with H, actually, I don't mind if he is unbanned. I did support an enforced cooling off period so I guess that is what we got. Thanks for your help with that matter. --GoRight (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) "sorry: I may not have been paying attention. Which topic ban?" - LOL. Yes, yes, I am quite certain that you are completely oblivious to what it is. Luckily there is a place, WP:RESTRICT, where you can go to see a list of such things. That is the value in recording properly imposed bans there. Perhaps you would care to actually note your current claim there as well?

"you've lost me. Which events?" - Why H's editing of both Cold Fusion and it's talk page after he claimed to have no such interest right there on your talk page in he plea to you, of course. Even so, my point has been duly registered so I shall let it drop for now. --GoRight (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC with above) You really should do something about that memory, Dr. Connolley. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight, which you technically filed, though it was written by Raul654. That RfC was an education for me. Today's events have pointed out to me actions by the editor who closed it; there is a problem, and he did it again, and probably more times than that. This time it was relatively harmless. It's not clear to me who, exactly, decided the topic ban. On the other hand, I believe that GoRight voluntarily accepted this ban, though the process sucked, and it probably only affects one article, a minor one, William Connolley, and its Talk page. Yes, I think you might be a tad involved, but, then again, I haven't seen that stop you from ignoring all rules, why should you start now? And I don't think you want me to answer that question here, or anywhere, I've tried. Someone else will have to tap you on the shoulder. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

@GR: I wouldn't describe H's edits of CF as "events". If anyone had a problem with the substance, I'm sure they would have brought them to my attention on my talk page. I've explicitly invited you to do so, above. You haven't. As for User:GoRight/Community sanction, this is the first I've heard of it. I got bored with the RFC long before it dragged to its conclusion; seems to have been the last I cared. @A: tap tap? Bored William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"As for User:GoRight/Community sanction, this is the first I've heard of it." - Oh, well, glad to hear it then. Given that you have a fresh perspective would you care to weigh in on the topic and, perhaps, advocate on my behalf to have it lifted?  :) --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've learnt to leave William Connolley well alone. I don't watch it, and I'm not going to comment on who is allowed to edit it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"I've learnt to leave William Connolley well alone." - As have I.

"I'm not going to comment on who is allowed to edit it." - Fair enough. I wasn't really expecting you to take up my case.  :) --GoRight (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Hansen's role as a climate activist

Thanks for your support on this. It's remarkable how assiduously Hansen's Misplaced Pages fans work to suppress the slightest criticism of their hero.

I doubt he'll be head of GISS much longer. The previous administration found it politically impossible to fire him. Bur he's becoming an embarrassment to the new admin. as well. Best wishes, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NP. I agree about the whitewashing of the article. I haven't pushed back too much of late but since the article seems to have grown in content since I last read it the calls of WP:UNDUE are ringing false to me, especially since the guy was actually arrested. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins revert warring on your Talk page

Delicious, that constellation of names, and so thoroughly useless, since you can read history as well as anyone else., . This is an indef blocked editor involved, if the charges are true. Contrary to the firmly held religious belief of too many, anyone may edit Misplaced Pages, it is only getting edits to stick that can be more difficult. I wonder, was there a ban discussion? Do you think I should check it out? I've got my hands full right now writing an RfAr, but Scibaby was blocked by our favorite admin. So that makes all three in one tight little space, shades of your RfC. It does give me an idea. Dangerous things, those ideas. --Abd (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you meatpuppet for Scibaby, you can be blocked. R. Baley (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course. However, I've reverted out contributions from obvious socks, and even vandals, and they've been reverted back in on the argument that the editor himself could make that decision, I simply did what I've seen many do. I took responsibility for that content not being abusive in this context, by reverting it back in. Let's see what GoRight himself has to say. Thanks for the warning, though if you really wanted to effectively warn me, you'd do it on my talk page, n'est-ce pas? In any case, I interpret from the above that you did not consider the text above to be an example of "meat puppeting" for Scibaby.

Scibaby case, velly innertesting. What a tangled web! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Abd (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, well. It seems that there has been some controversy on my talk page while I was absent. Apparently the admins involved are unaware that even though they remove a comment I will still receive a "you have new messages" notification and would have found this regardless of their actions. In this particular case I wish to respond to the query so I am restoring the original comment to do so. I'll thank those involved to leave the restored version alone this time. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

To Raul and R. Baley:

A few notes to the admins involved. Since I have purported had scibaby visit my talk page I decided to dig a little to see what else this particular user account might have been up to. So I visited the user's personal page and, as expected, I found a template declaring the user to be a sock of scibaby.

Looking at the user's contributions I notice a very slim list of edits by this user which made me curious about how it was determined so soon that this user is a sock of scibaby. The template on the user's page directed me to WP:Checkuser to see the evidence. When I went there that page indicates that it is no longer in use and is being kept for historical purposes. Needless to say I found no evidence pertaining to this case at that location so the sock template should probably be fixed to point to the correct place.

At the top of the WP:Checkuser page we find a pointer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations which seems to be the most current place to go for such things. Curiously I find no mention there either of this user or why they were determined to be a sock puppet of scibaby. Is this an oversight on Raul's part or am I simply looking in the wrong place?

I would like to review the evidence that you have to connect this user to scibaby given the small number of edits that they have made. Given the notoriety of scibaby and the number of socks purported to be involved, I can only assume that they are fully aware that there are only two ways that any website can correlate, definitely, two accounts as being used by the same user: IP Address and Tracking Cookies. Such a user is also no doubt aware already that both of these are easily defeated, the former via any number of googleable anonymous proxy services and the latter by simply deleting their browser's cookies whenever they switch between accounts. This is all basic web architecture 101 material.

So, given this and the ease with which any sophisticated sock puppeteer could defeat these two definitive tracking mechanisms I am truly curious as to how Raul could have made such a determination so quickly. Lacking any clear evidence that this truly was scibaby this would appear to be another example of the channeling of William Stoughton and possibly a violation of Misplaced Pages's checkuser and privacy policies, so this is not a matter that we should take lightly. I assume you would agree.

Any comments, Raul? --GoRight (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment on one thing here: IP and cookies are not the only way to (hint) "fingerprint" someone on the internet. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. Thanks for the pointer.

I was, of course, referring to techniques that can definitively link two accounts. But in retrospect even a static the IP address is insufficient, in general, to even uniquely identify a computer much less a specific user. For example, anyone that uses a NAT router will have all of their traffic coming from the IP address assigned to the router by the ISP (either via DHCP or statically). The ISPs tend to use long lease times in DHCP to give a particular subscriber a "relatively stable" IP over time by tracking the MAC address of the router. Many routers provide a MAC address cloning feature which can be used to obtain new IP's at will, but the more likely method would be to simply use a remote proxying service.

A tracking cookie would be the most direct and unique method available given today's technologies. The web server can easily generate a truly unique ID, stuff it in the only place it has available to tag the target machine which is a cookie, and then always read the cookie first and use it to tag any account that logs in from a browser containing that cookie. Even this is not truly definitive proof as the cookies could be copied from one machine to another if you wanted to falsely implicate someone but deleting them definitively causes the server to lose its trace capability.

Device fingerprinting techniques are an interesting category of possibilities, and one that I had overlooked in my analysis above so thanks for pointing them out. These are much less reliable (i.e. less definitive) than the two mentioned above, and very limited in their scope unless the user allows the website to install executable code akin to an ActiveX control or a browser plugin. Remember, the browsers were specifically designed to prevent the websites from being able to do anything extensive on your machine. The time skew technique is different in that respect, although I suspect its claim of unique identification are exaggerated given the information that is actually available at both the TCP and the HTTP layers. Still, these certainly would provide additional circumstantial evidence that two accounts might be linked. Perhaps sufficient for checkuser purposes, but certainly not anything that would stand up in court.

I have no idea what techniques Misplaced Pages employs to try and track specific users, so this entire discussion is theoretical at best.

There is still the unanswered question of what lead Raul to run a WP:Checkuser on this user in the first place (assuming he did, but lacking that such a definitive assertion of being scibaby would otherwise seem ludicrous given the available editing history). Doing so without cause is a violation of policy. If, on the other hand, in the course of running a valid checkuser request on some other user one of the techniques listed above lead him indirectly to this account well that would be another possibility and certainly much less objectionable from a policy perspective.

This is why I am asking Raul what the basis of his declaration actually was. I don't want to assume anything, I prefer to know. --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are still barking up the wrong tree, there at least one other way (aside ip and cookie) - and it doesn't require any extra software. Figure it out yourself. (and once you've figured it out, don't write it down here, please). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you've read WP:Checkuser (which, incidentally, is not "historical" but a copy of the active meta-wide checkuser policy), I'm sure you noticed that specific IP data from checkuser queries is generally not made publicly available. It would likely be an abuse, and a violation of policy, on the part of Raul654 to share that IP data with you. If you suspect that the checkuser or privacy policies have been violated, then the prescribed approach (again, from the WP:Checkuser page you referenced) is to contact the Ombudsman Committee or the Audit Subcommittee. MastCell  06:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"which, incidentally, is not "historical" but a copy of the active meta-wide checkuser policy" - I was referring to the "historical" template that appears at the very top of the page with a big red X that states:

"This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion regarding the subject, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump proposals page."

what exactly does that historical template mean if not what I said?

"I'm sure you noticed that specific IP data from checkuser queries is generally not made publically available." - You are correct. Let me clarify my request. I do not want Raul to expose any particular private information such as the actual IP address. Just tell us the nature of how the connection was made (i.e. they were identified as being from the same IP address or using a tracking cookie or whatever) and/or why he even thought to run a checkuser on this particular account at all. I accept that there might be a perfectly logical explanation that does not violate policy, but barring such an explanation it sure looks fishy to me. I have noted the same concerns on other occasions as well.

"If you suspect that the checkuser or privacy policies have been violated, then the prescribed approach (again, from the WP:Checkuser page you referenced) is to contact the Ombudsman Committee or the Audit Subcommittee." - Suspecting something and having proof of it are two very different things. I would never make such a charge lightly and without something more definitive than we have here. Still, this does constitute smoke. I just don't have actual evidence of fire, so I won't yell fire in this crowded theater just yet. I assume you agree that we should minimize any disruption or unnecessary drama, correct?

Although I may take your advice and register a concerned editor's notice to let those in the proper places take note of the incident ... I'm just not sure it is appropriate at this point. The whole thing could be avoided if Raul wanted to offer up some sort of explanation of how he came to check on this user in the first place. Perhaps that was justified. I simply don't know and am looking for answers. Care to clarify the situation Raul? --GoRight (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul isn't going to give you any information. He has more than once told me that he has no interest in "sharing checkuser techniques with non-checkusers". What I'm concerned about is that there have been so many blocked Scibaby accounts likely editing from many different IP ranges, etc, that it would be very easy to get a case of mistaken identity. Wide IP ranges can be assumed to be compromised and if anyone on a certain ISP in a certain city edits global warming articles from a skeptic's point of view, they may be assumed to be just another sockpuppet. I'm obviously not terribly familiar with checkuser techniques, nor is this the correct venue for such a proposal, but I would feel much more at ease if a neutral checkuser would review a sample of Raul's scibaby sock edits and confirm that there is sufficient evidence for them. Oren0 (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect that you are correct about Raul's non-response. I sort of anticipate as much but now I can say that I have tried to resolve the situation, if need be. I completely share your concerns about unintended victims of the scibaby witch hunt. This is a prime example. There is essentially no edit history to go on and if, as you say, he is blocking people simply because they appear within a certain IP range I question whether that is appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of general things - we must be looking at different checkuser pages. When I click on Misplaced Pages:CheckUser, I'm taken to a page stating it is the "official checkuser policy", not a historical page - so we must be looking at different pages. The way checkuser is structured, other checkusers are really the only ones who can verify each others' work and confirm that there are no abuses. That's why it may make sense to take your concerns to the Audit Committee - I don't think any of us can really provide any answers. MastCell  17:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, it was my bad. The sock template at the top of User:Willy & the Poor Boys states the following:

"This account is a sock puppet of Scibaby and has been blocked indefinitely.
Please refer to Checkuser for evidence."

So even though it looked like it was going to take me to WP:CheckUser it was actually taking me to WP:Requests for checkuser which I didn't notice. That is the historical page in question. Sorry for the confusion. Either way, that template should probably be fixed to point to the correct place, or no? Is the a reason to point people to the old page?

"I don't think any of us can really provide any answers." - Well except for Raul but your point is well taken. --GoRight (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

{{sockpuppetCheckuser}}, the template used on Willy's page, is actually deprecated - we're supposed to use {{CheckedSockpuppet}} instead, which points to WP:SPI. Not sure why it has to be so confusing, but I'll update the template on Willy's page. MastCell  21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole thing could be avoided if Raul wanted to offer up some sort of explanation of how he came to check on this user in the first place. - I don't discuss checkuser methods or results with non-checkusers, but I don't have to discuss either to answer this question. I have a lot of global warming articles and related articles on my watchlist, including this page. I keep an eye on them for new users. When I see one that pops up and starts editing in a fashion similar to Scibaby, I checkuser him, and if the checkuser is conclusive, I tag and block him. In this case, a new user popped onto GoRight's talk page and suggested that GoRight make certain edits favoring Scibaby's POV. (Why GoRight's talk page? Because GoRight has a history of proxy editing for Scibaby, having done so on at least 3 occasions by my count. GoRight has already been warned about this and further such edits would result in severe consequences for him.) A new user popping into GoRight's talk page making such suggestions set off multiple alarms, which is why I checkusered him. The result (about which I will not give details) was extremely conclusive. Raul654 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Because GoRight has a history of proxy editing for Scibaby" - I object to this unfounded accusation. I have never proxy edited on Scibaby's behalf. We (Raul and myself) are both well aware of the policies in that regard. If I ever reverted anything of Scibaby's it was either inadvertant (i.e. I did not realize it was a Scibaby sock because I don't check every user's page for a Scibaby Sock Template first) or because I believed that the material would improve the encyclopedia and thereby took full responsibility for it.

"In this case, a new user popped onto GoRight's talk page and suggested that GoRight make certain edits favoring Scibaby's POV." - Really? What POV would that be, exactly? That RealClimate has been whitewashed? That is hardly a POV unique to Scibaby, I assume.

"The result (about which I will not give details) was extremely conclusive." - I guess we will have to accept your word for that part. The most relevant question at this point is how many such users have you already checkusered using such flimsy evidence as this which did NOT happen to turn out the be conclusive? Those would seem to be violations of policy, would they not? In fact, that this account happened to be, by your claim, a positive hit does not change the fact that the reasons you express in this case may still be a violation of policy and abuse of the checkuser tools. This is becoming a long standing concern, actually.

Now I don't want to misinterpret your response here, so let me repeat back what I heard and you let me know if this is incorrect: your basic mode of operation is to watch global warming articles looking for new users who basically express a skeptical POV (i.e. which you would then consider to be supportive of Scibaby's POV). Is this correct? And then you run checkuser on all such users as a pro-active step in combating Scibaby. Is this correct? --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to this unfounded accusation. I have never proxy edited on Scibaby's behalf. - and I object to having to deal with your proxy editing on behalf of Scibaby, like you did here and here and here. Claiming that your meatpuppetry was done for the good of the encyclopedia doesn't in any way diminish the fact that it is meatpuppetry and is prohibited. (Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them...Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. --Misplaced Pages:Banning policy)

The relevant part of that policy is "Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." I accept responsibility for all of my edits, none of which were made at the request of Scibaby or anyone else. Oh, and your third link above was solely my opinion, not that of Scibaby as far as I know. The point being, as was confirmed by you below, you are merely blanket targeting all new skeptics in the hopes of eliminating them by finding ways to label them as Scibaby socks. That's what I meant by "efficient". So far you have failed to convince me that this is not exactly what is happening. --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will have to accept your word for that part. - well, you could do what you did last time, and make unfounded claims about my integrity, only to end up looking like an ass when you were told that another person with checkuser access did the check. Why not give that old chestnut another try?

The most relevant question at this point is how many such users have you already checkusered using such flimsy evidence as this which did NOT happen to turn out the be conclusive? - Less than 20% of my Scibaby checks turn out to be someone else, last time I checked.

"Those would seem to be violations of policy, would they not?" - as long as no privacy-compromising information is released, successful and unsuccesful checks are permitted under both the en checkuser policy and WMF privacy policy. So, as usual, your claims about policy are wrong.

In fact, that this account happened to be, by your claim, a positive hit does not change the fact that the reasons you express in this case may still be a violation of policy and abuse of the checkuser tools. - The only abuse that could occur would be if privacy-compromising information was released (it wasn't) or if the check was run "where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry." (--Misplaced Pages:CheckUser. And notice how people who know what policy says can quote relevant sections, rather than nebulously referring to "policy" and making false claims about what it says) Seeing as how the check was run on an account that was (a) new (b) using correct wikimarkup (c) to edit on the same articles as Scibaby, (d) from Scibaby's POV, (not to mention the fact that it actually turned out to be Scibaby) I'd say there was ample evidence to justify this check. But why left facts get in the way of a good lie?

Meh. I quote relevant sections of policy all the time. The part of the check user policy which you are arguably violating is the "where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry." Simply expressing a skeptical view of AGW is not credible evidence of anything, yet this is the primary litmus test that you admit to below. --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your basic mode of operation is to watch global warming articles looking for new users who basically express a skeptical POV (i.e. which you would then consider to be supportive of Scibaby's POV). Is this correct? - so far, yes. And then you run checkuser on all such users as a pro-active step in combating Scibaby. Is this correct? Not all new skeptics are Scibaby socks, but certainly all Scibaby socks are new skeptics. There are a few other traits I look for in addition to the above (probably the same ones that cause Boris, Stephan etc to request checks from me.) Raul654 (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks, Raul, for being so forthcoming. It's useful. --Abd (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of criticsm at RealClimate

What do you think of the lack of a criticism section at RealClimate? There seems to be a whitewash there. Willy & the Poor Boys (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I myself have noticed such problems with that particular page in the past and at the time I would have agreed with this assessment. I can't comment on the page as it stands now, however, as it has been argued to be part of my current editing restrictions which I fully intend to honor. So, even if there is a whitewashing of that page currently I am not able to effect any changes to correct the situation in this particular case. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Influences

I must say, your writing style has taken on a strong resemblance to Abd's. And you used to express yourself so pithily. ;-) cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Fair enough on that post. I debated about trimming it but there are so many points to be made it is hard to decide what to leave out!  :) Perhaps I should refactor it a bit, I WOULD like people to actually read it. Did you make it all the way through? --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

There, I refactored it a bit. Better? --GoRight (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Better! But it could be tighter still -- too many qualifiers that aren't really necessary (beware meaningless words like "really"). How about:

The issue at hand is whether administrators have the authority to unilaterally issue topic bans sans substantive discussion within appropriate venues and having duly arrived at a clear consensus. I argue that they do NOT have such powers. If administrator A declares a topic ban on editor B can we definitively say that editor B is now banned? Of course not. If a community discussion subsequently ensues that clearly shows community consensus against the ban, well then there is NO ban and we all know it. If; if on the other hand the consensus is clearly in favor of the ban, well then there IS a ban and we all know it. In both cases the existence of the ban was not established until AFTER the community discussion confirmed it one way or the other.

The question in the case of Abd (and Jed Rothwell for those following along) is what was the true status of the purported ban between the time that administrator A declared it and when the community either confirmed or denied it's existence? Was editor B banned during that time or not? If you argue YES, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO have the power to issue bans. If you argue NO, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO NOT have the power to issue bans. (Ed. note: nice parallel construction in the last two sentences!)

An interesting case arises if the resulting community discussion show no consensus either way. In that case is editor B banned, or not? I should hope that the benefit of the doubt would go to the editor in this case simply because a clear consensus for a ban by the community failed to appear.

That's what I'd have written anyway. cheers - Mr. Language Person (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. They do tighten it up quite a bit, and if less truly is more then you have increased the impact quite a bit. Thanks for the editing lesson!  :) --GoRight (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Word count

This script, although meant for DYKs, will gives word count. Technically it won't work for an addition to a page, but you can always use a sandbox (or even Preview). . Guettarda (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. We can delete that comment if you have not already done so. --GoRight (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you may not be the only person wondering about that. Unless the clerk suggests otherwise, it might as well stay there. Guettarda (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Heaven and Earth (book)

If you have time (& inclination), you might have a look at the RfC here for David Stockwell's review of the book. The Usual Suspects don't want to allow use of it. TIA & cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall endeavor to take a look but it may be a few days. I want to get the material at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley completed first. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note on the ArbCase

Just reading through the evidence page and I've looked at your table of events. You might find a more effective presentation to be dropping the "Shows" at the beginning of your comments. When you repeat a word so often, it may cause eye-glazing. Style note only. Franamax (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Point noted, thanks. --GoRight (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

comment in the case should be in the other section

You made this comment under "Comment by parties", it should have been posted to "Comment by others", could you move it there, please? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. Moved per your request. Sorry for the oversight. --GoRight (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent comment

The comment you just made on the evidence talk page crosses the line. I was trying to make it clear that the discussion needed to end before it began degrading into attacks and trolling. Please redact your comment, or I will be reverting it and closing that discussion shortly. Hersfold 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Redact it in what way? It is a perfectly cogent response to TOAT's point. If my comment crosses some line then so must TOAT's. I have no problem with you reverting my comment so long as you also revert TOAT's. Fair enough?

And for the record, what line am I crossing here? --GoRight (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"I was trying to make it clear that the discussion needed to end before it began degrading into attacks and trolling." - I am truly confused here. Is your complaint that I posted a comment after you had indicated the discussion should move on, or something else? I had only just become aware of that conversation and I certainly would expect to be given my say in it as well as everyone else. Please clarify your complaint.

I am not trying to be uncooperative here, I just seriously believe that my points are valid and should remain. If there is good reason to remove or adjust them I will certainly take action once I actually understand the nature of your complaint. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I don't object to GR making his opinion known, though the clerk's stated intent to close the thread perhaps suggests that the comment should be moved elsewhere. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in, SBHB. Considering that, (since it was this comment I meant, sorry for the confusion there, my fault for not linking), I'll not ask you to remove it, although I will be closing the discussion anyway. My intentions in asking you to remove it were to try and keep the discussion above-board; I'd noticed that the discussion was beginning to go downhill rather quickly, and made a comment to that effect before you posted, GoRight. When I saw your comment, I felt it was rather pointed and the start of worse things to come. As a clerk, I am tasked with keeping the case pages in relative order, which includes user conduct. I will admit I'm trying to be a little more heavy-handed in this case than I might otherwise, due to the high drama levels involved with the subject matter and main parties; I'm not the only one who is worried this case could easily spiral out of control if it's allowed to do so. If it was not your intention to offend, I do apologize; it's clear SBHB didn't take it that way, anyway. Hersfold 04:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)