Jump to content

User talk:GoRight

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Count Iblis (talk | contribs) at 00:51, 31 July 2010 (→Interesting article: new section). 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Historical References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.

Blocked

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

I question your neutrality here given some of our interactions and some of your comments about me in the past, but let's defer that for now. If you wouldn't mind, rather than smoothing this all over, or brushing it all under the rug, by simply closing the AN/I discussion could you please give an accounting of who in that discussion you are considering to be neutral, uninvolved editors who support a ban? These are the people we are supposed to be taking into consideration in such decisions, correct? --GoRight (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, I didn't even remember that you filed a request for arbitration surrounding the climate change discretionary sanctions - My only involvement was to instigate setting it up - I have no interest in the field at all. It doesn't bother me whether they continue or not. I really don't think I'm biased with regards to you - I have no opinion about whether you should or should not be banned - You don't edit in my field and I rarely come into contact with you. With regards to the ban, it doesn't really matter how many people supported, or who for that matter - a community ban is an indefinite block that no administrator would be willing to overturn. From what I see from the discussion, no administrator would be willing to overturn an indefinite block from your account. When it came to the discussion of consensus (See here), not one person suggested that there shouldn't be a ban. One person was neutral, but stated that they wouldn't stand in its way - there was a fairly clear consensus that there should be a ban. I noted in my notification to you that you should take some time out before considering an appeal to BASC - I'm disappointed that you've decided to appeal it so soon - You would have have been much more successful had you appealed the sanction a few months down the line on the grounds that you were willing to change your behaviour, not meta points about who supported what which I fear will no doubt prolong your ban. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this explanation seems confusing when one looks at the details. Am I merely blocked, in which case I can legitimately put up an unblock request to see if someone will unblock me or not, or am I banned, in which case doing so would be moot because other administrators would be barred from unilaterally overturning the ban by unblocking me without another community discussion or an appeal? I was not blocked until you took action, and so I had been assuming the latter since you declared me to be community banned and cited a community discussion and directed me to the appropriate ban appeals review board.

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

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

Letter to the Appeals Subcommittee

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

Email to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

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

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

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

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

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

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

GoRight

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

Reply from the Appeals Subcommittee

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

Email from the Ban Appeals Subcommittee

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

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Shell Kinney

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

Interesting article

Have you read this article? Count Iblis (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoRight&oldid=376350372"