Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 20:02, 3 February 2010 (→Peanut gallery commentary ...: Thanks, Hipocrite!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

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

Content I could be updating right now ... if only I could edit.

Assault rifle#Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

Current text:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine , and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Primary pistol grip
• Forward grip
• Threaded barrel (for a Suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
• Barrel shroud

This is incorrect per the definitions found in the law itself, . The relevant section, SEC. 110102(b)(30) of the statute reads:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a bayonet mount;

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) a grenade launcher;

Blocked (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The degree of parallelism between any two cases decreases with complexity. Unless your diffs are fairly recent, I doubt that they would be actionable; I would also have moral qualms to acting on them, as it would violate the above-expressed principle of seeking unbiased information filters. Further, I am not interested in discussing any other editors; if you would like to speak with them, your email remains enabled or you may request that I or another of the 67 people watching this page bring a matter to their attention."

This does tend to hamper any discussion of the neutrality of your enforcement and suggests an unwillingness to work together to find a fair and amicable resolution. I find this troubling. Is there, perhaps, a neutral party that you trust that we might engage as a mediator in this dispute? --GoRight (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"The above post, if you will forgive my cynicism, sounds remarkably like a statement of intention to proceed exactly as before should you be unblocked without condition. It even demonstrates some of the very tendencies I outlined in my original blocking statement. As has previously been expressed at great length by many parties, this is not acceptable."

Actually, if you go back and read that post again with a clear and unbiased head I think that you will see that it is NOT an argument that I should be unblocked without condition. Rather it is an argument that I should be either (a) given sanctions appropriate to the established community standards and norms as demonstrably established by the exemplars I cited, or (b) that others who have behaved similarly to myself also be given the sanctions that you have imposed on me (which currently stands at an indefinite block without the possibility to be unblocked by anyone without your sole permission). I am perfectly willing to accept any sanctions you mete out as long as they are consistent with the principle of neutral enforcement (and, therefore, consistent with the sanctions and restrictions imposed on others who act substantially similar to myself).

Arguing that you happened upon me via unbiased information sources is all well and good, but it does not remove your obligation to ensure that your enforcement actions are neutral in and of themselves independent of your methods of detection. Regardless of how you came to decide that my behavior is problematic, you cannot simply ignore substantially similar behaviors on the part of others once they have been brought to your attention. To do so completely flies in the face of neutral enforcement, as opposed to neutral detection. The two are not synonymous.

In other words, once a particular style of type of behavior has been labeled as either accepted or problematic, you are bound by neutral enforcement to mete out comparable sanctions to ALL editors equally who engage in those behaviors whenever you become aware of them and through whatever means. You cannot use the claim of using unbiased methods of detection as a shield to justify action in some cases and inaction in others. This is clearly counter to the very spirit of neutral enforcement. --GoRight (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of your framework

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

Civility

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

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

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

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

Climate change topic ban

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

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

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

Ban on participation on community discussions

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

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

Can someone please tell 2/0 that I am waiting for a response?

And yet another nudge if you please? --GoRight (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nudged, i am going to buy you a long stick, it would be easier :)

As you have a bit of time on your hands :) Could you look over my wip and let me know what you think of it :) (assuming this will not cause further grief) cheers mate mark nutley (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall take a look but not likely this evening if that is OK. --GoRight (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I have glanced through your sandbox but plan to give it a more detailed reading hopefully later today. My initial question is what are you intending to do with these sections? Are you suggesting the creation of a separate article for this criticism, or are you going to propose these are additions to the existing IPCC page? Your response will help me to give you more focused feedback. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I figure a new article, there is more than enough material for one mark nutley (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Peanut gallery commentary ...

RE: by MastCell.

Absent an assumption of bad faith regarding people advocating that a true NPOV on the climate change articles actually lies in the direction of the skeptics (over-all not necessarily regarding the science), statistically we should expect to see more sanctions for proponents than we do for skeptics owing to the larger number thereof. Neutral enforcement should see a distribution of sanctions in roughly equal proportions to the number of skeptics vs. proponents within the general population.

There is no a priori reason to assume that the skeptics are more tendentious than the proponents. To assume otherwise is to INTRODUCE a bias in the form of a prejudice. --GoRight (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: by AQFK and SS. See WP:SELFBLOCK. --GoRight (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I posted your suggestion there SPLETTE :] 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: by MastCell.

"I would like to see someone - anyone - commit to taking the high road. That means ignoring petty name-calling or insults directed at oneself, and ceasing to dish them out to others. If a few people on each "side" were willing to do this, the problem editors - on both sides - would find themselves effectively marginalized."

I refer you to my unblock pledges above as well as my offer on the issue of civility. "Be the change you want to see in the world." You take the same pledges and let us lead by example, assuming you can convince 2/0 to give me the opportunity to prove my sincerity. --GoRight (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: by MastCell.

"It would be trivially easy to create a small piece of Javascript code that would prevent you from editing certain pages."

Ironically, I was going to write exactly this piece of code but, alas, being blocked I am unable to modify my monobook.js file. Otherwise this would have been available already. There seems to be no end to the useful work that 2/0 seems to be impeding, and when he even seems to agree that a full on block is not needed. --GoRight (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: on the CRU hacking page.

It is worth noting that Gavin Schmidt's personal opinion and assessment of the difficulty involved is being given undue weight. I don't believe that Schmidt is an expert in computer science or computer security so his assessment is rather irrelevant is it not? --GoRight (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: discussion including Hipocrite.

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

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

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

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

RE: by Hipocrite.

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

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

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

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

Responses to review request by Marknutley

Overall

The typical route to the creation of this type of article is that a criticism section within some article, in this case the main IPCC article, grows too large and is subsequent split out of the main article and a summary is left behind. The current criticism section of the IPCC article is growing rather large but I suspect you will meet resistance in trying to split it out into another article. You might want to seek opinions on such at the talk page.

Your sub-article would need to be updated to properly reflect the current content of the existing criticism section. If you attempt to create this article without consensus on the IPCC talk page the most likely objection will be that it is a content or POV fork and its deletion will be sought on that basis. The next most likely objection will be that it is giving undue weight and not news. You will need to convince the other editors that these are not being violated and provide some justification for that claim.

I would recommend that you attempt to vet the material you have in your sub-sections on the main IPCC talk page first, and indeed some discussion of these issue may have already occurred there. Any objections already expressed in those conversations will need to be addressed before the material will be usable in either the existing article or a sub-article. If there is an impasse in this regards on the talk page your only real option is WP:DR and trying to draw in other opinions using approved neutral channels.

--GoRight (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, well the arguments about Himalayan Glaciers being kept out of the IPCC article itself have now been proven to be wrong. The ref`s in my wip in that section prove it conclusively. The rest is of course still under way but i feel there are more than enough ref`s to prove it`s notability. I don`t think the other sections have been discussed as yet in the ipcc article, it`s just to much trouble trying t oget anything in there :) mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Projected date of disappearance of the Himalayan Glaciers

Mistakes in regards to Rainforests

Mistakes in regards to Hurricanes

Political Fallout

Emails

I'm sorry I haven't responded to your emails. To be honest, I'm trying move away from having anything to do with climate-change stuff, because the atmosphere around the topic depresses me, and I haven't really felt like responding for that reason. That said, I decided it was rude not to give you the courtesy of some kind of response.

You don't have to apologize to me. I can't recall anything you've said to me, or about me, that I would consider unkind, so you don't really have anything to apologize for. I certainly don't hold a grudge on the basis of feeling insulted by you, because you've never said anything about me that I've found insulting. I also think you're a very intelligent person with good critical-thinking faculties, and I suspect that if we met in person for a beer we would probably have an interesting and friendly conversation/argument.

That said, I don't think you're a good fit for this project. That's my personal opinion; I'm not going to cite chapter and verse of policy, because it is only my personal opinion. I'm not going to argue if anyone wants to unblock you, but I can't honestly pretend that I think it's a good idea either. I really don't want to argue about whether your behavior was "better" or "worse" than WMC's, or Kim's, or someone else's, because I'm really tired of the way people on both sides view their actions entirely in relation to what they think other people have gotten away with. I don't want to contribute further to that. I know you're not malicious, and you're honestly seeking to do the right thing as you see it, but I think our conceptions of "the right thing" as regards Misplaced Pages are probably irreconcilably different. The wording of your pledges sounds fine, but it would take a lot at this point to convince me that you've had a real change of heart about your approach to Misplaced Pages - particularly as the pledges are made in response to the external pressure of a block rather than spontaneously. That may be uncharitable of me, and I think there's enough water under the bridge that I'm not capable of objectivity regarding your editing, which is one reason why it's probably best that I not play any further role in arguing about your block. I'll leave it to others.

Anyhow, I honestly wish you well whatever direction things take. I really do feel badly that you feel you've been treated unfairly. I know that's not a pleasant feeling. I won't stand in the way of you being unblocked, and if you are, then I hope you're serious about the pledges you've made. If you remain blocked, then I hope you find a more rewarding outlet for the convictions you have on the subject. I apologize for responding tardily and on-wiki. MastCell  07:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I can certainly understand and respect your position regarding the atmosphere on the climate change pages, as well as my approach to wikipedia in response to that atmosphere. It is unfortunate that the toxic atmosphere here, which was here before I even arrived and which continues even though I am blocked, requires a brash attitude to even get noticed above the background noise and so I have in some sense had to become that which I rail against simply because that is the way that things operate here. The gaming that has taken place for years relies on the natural tendencies of uninvolved people to make snap judgments based on limited information. Everything I have learned about how to play the angles I have learned by watching how the regulars operate and I have sought to emulate that behavior because that's the behavior that seems to get things done.

It is also unfortunate that 2/0 insists on singling me out, and unfairly so, while defending the very things by others that he is blocking me for. He argues that we need a collegial atmosphere, but with due respect his actions and his delaying tactics are anything but collegial. They are as much a source of the toxic atmosphere here as anything any other editors have done. His actions speak for themselves in that respect. --GoRight (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock