Posted by: GoRight | August 4, 2011

Comment on David Appell’s Quark Soup

Via WMC I came across a post by David Appell at Quark Soup wherein I posted the following comment:

Providing links to news articles which publish unsubstantiated claims by purported victims does not constitute evidence of anything other than the purported victim made a claim.  Watts is right.  Where is the actual evidence that the claim is true?

— GoRight

The comment is awaiting moderation.  Let’s see if it ever appears.

UPDATE: I followed up over on WMC’s blog.  See comment #59.

UPDATE II: Appell approves my comment.  See last comment in this archived version.

UPDATE III: Apparently WMC is offended by the truth.  He removes my comment without a reply.  Sorry, WMC, didn’t mean to offend your delicate sensibilities.  🙂

Posted by: GoRight | June 14, 2011

Appeal Denied

I can’t say that I am surprised by the outcome but here is the response I received from the Ban Appeals SubCommittee:

David Fuchs <xxxx> to goright

Hey GoRight, sorry to keep you in the lurch.

At this time we’re declining to unblock. A new appeal in a few months could be successful, but right now the major issues are that you weren’t totally forthcoming from the get-go and that there isn’t a huge amount of evidence that you have demonstrated an improvement and can work constructively. I suggest you find something on another project that you can devote some time to and interact with other editors in a collegiate manner. Evidence of this, combined with full disclosure and continued abstinence from socking, will greatly improve your chances.


David Fuchs

I’ll try again after I build up a larger history of collaboration on another project.  At least the socking issue has come out and can be put behind us at this point.

There is one group of people I still need to apologize to on that front.  To all of the people who supported me in the past I would just like to say that I am sorry for having deceived you and for having abused your trust.  I sincerely regret having deceived you most of all.

Posted by: GoRight | May 26, 2011

My Ban Appeal

Additional updates made as of 05/31/2011:

For those who might be interested I am in the process of appealing my ban on Wikipedia.

As part of my appeal I was asked by the committee to make a full accounting of any sock puppets that I have used.  In response I have admitted to the committee that I have, in fact, employed sock puppets in violation of my ban and I have provided a complete list of the puppets I created to the subcommittee.

As part of my appeal I have pledged to leave the battleground tactics of my past behind me, and I have asked that I be judged going forward by my post-ban behavior rather than any pre-ban behaviors.  I believe the primary message to come out of the Climate Change Arbitration which took place during my absence was that battleground tactics will not be tolerated.

I am now taking that message to heart.  If I am successful at getting unblocked I plan to do the following:

  • I will seek a voluntary interaction ban with any individuals with whom I have previously had any significant disagreements, and I fully intend to honor any such agreements which are mutually accepted.
  • I will make a good faith effort to edit in a manner generally consistent with WP:1RR with a clear preference for resolving issues on the talk pages rather than engaging in edit warring.
  • UPDATE: Both as a means of proving my sincerity and to make some measure of restitution to the community I will voluntarily restrict my article space and article talk activities for a period of 6 months from when I am unblocked to nothing but direct community service.  This will be served as a combination of (a) helping the project to reduce it’s copy edit backlog, and (b) Recent Changes Patrol to help fight vandalism.  I propose that at the end of 6 months the following four administrators review my work: MastCell2over0, LessHeard vanU, and Lar.  If three or more of these administrators agree that I need to do more service before editing outside of these parameters I will voluntarily extend my self-imposed restriction for an additional 6 months.  If I wish to try other similar forms of community service during this period I will first ask for community approval to do so and will only do so if approved.

Much time has passed since I was banned.  It is true that I have violated my ban by employing sock puppets.  It is true that I vigorously denied that activity at the time and that I said some things which were unkind and hurtful.  I hereby apologize for having said those things.  The bottom line is that I eventually came to understand that my socking activity was wrong and I have since chosen to stop but I cannot undo what I have already done.

I would hope that my having recognized the error of my ways (both in terms of socking and employing a battleground approach to editing) would count for something in this appeal.  I clearly understand that any return to a battleground mentality will result in an immediate return to my current ban.

The committee has decided to ask for community input.  The resulting discussion is here, here, and here.


While I have told the committee that I am intentionally avoiding any point by point rebuttals of issues being raised in the above mentioned discussions (to avoid increasing the drama level caused by my appeal) I believe that the following raises a valid and important point:

I note that he has not taken any steps to update the lies, taunts, and attacks in his previous blog entries about other editors who correctly identified his now-acknowledged sockpuppets, nor has he named his sockpuppet accounts in his blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So with that in mind I hereby publicly acknowledge that I was wrong to use sock puppets to evade my ban, and further that in my attempt to conceal my activity I did actively and unfairly lie to, taunt, and attack those who sought to expose those same activities.

To those whom I have wronged in this respect I do hereby offer my sincere apologies.  I know that an apology offers little comfort but it is the best I can do at this point.  I cannot undo what I have done on wiki.  I could delete the posts on this blog but I will instead make this public statement and link to it from each blog entry where I have made false claims.  This shall then serve as an enduring reminder of my shame in this matter.

Not all accounts which were suspected of being my sock puppets actually were.  As has been already made public on wiki I hereby acknowledge having created and used the following accounts to evade my ban:  TheNeutralityDoctor (talk · contribs), Absit invidia II (talk · contribs), and Copyright_police (talk · contribs).  I deny all other suspected socks and shall not discuss them further.


The archived version of the above discussion is here.

Posted by: GoRight | March 11, 2011

A quick note about commenting here …

During a recent exchange over on WMC’s blog it was noted that I am moderating the comments here.

This is only partially true.  I currently have things set such that the first comment from a particular poster must be moderated.  If approved, subsequent comments from that poster are allowed to pass through untouched.  At least that is how I understand the current setting to work.

So why am I moderating comments at all?  I am forced to moderate things to prevent people from using this blog as a vehicle for settling on-wiki scores.  For example, I have blocked several attempts to “out” a well known Wikipedia editor who is generally recognized as being a skeptic.  I have also taken steps previously to prevent the disclosure of personal information relating to a Wikipedia editor from the alarmist camp as well.  I enforce that policy equally.

See the About Page for our policy on adhering to Wikipedia policies in such matters (since we are a Wikipedia niche blog).

Now none of this is a huge deal.  This is a niche blog with a niche audience but the current settings help me to prevent such activity straight out of the gate, as well as avoiding the trivial circumvention of this policy by simply creating a new account each time.

Once you prove yourself trust worthy you are free to comment as you please.  I do reserve the right to remove material that violates any Wikipedia policies once it has been brought to my attention, or which crosses the line into abusive or libelous commentary against others (with me being the judge of where that line resides).

I will never edit the contents of a message to change its meaning to conform with my own preferred point of view, or to leave the reader with a misleading impression of the original author’s intended meaning.  You are free to disagree here but you have to maintain a minimal level of civility (as judged by me).

Feel free to say whatever you want about me or this blog.  We are the exception to the above.  Don’t be surprised if you get a dose of whatever you try to dish out in return though.  🙂

Posted by: GoRight | March 9, 2011

The comment WMC was afraid to let you see …

UPDATE II: WMC is so predictable.  I posted another reply on that thread (see comment #35) which highlighted that while I moderate all comments here to police them for Wikipedia policy violations I approve them quickly whereas WMC doesn’t approve them at all.  He sent me an email which stated “I can’t see this adding anything; probably best to post it to your blog, with the obligatory complaints of censorship” and then deleted the post.  He fails to understand that the issue isn’t censorship, per se, as I don’t care if he deletes my comments.  The point is his selective use of editing and removal of content in an effort to control (in his mind at least) the message that his readers are left with.  He can’t just admit that his use of scare quotes was rude and a violation of the very treatment that he demands from others and move on, he somehow thinks that if he removes such statements that there was no truth behind them (i.e. that he continually edits things to fit his own personal world view rather than acknowledge the obvious).  This is what makes him unsuitable as a Wikipedia editor, IMHO.  He doesn’t recognize his own biases.  My point has been made and illustrated.  Time to move on …

UPDATE: It appears the block mentioned below was not for me specifically.  I must have run afoul of some size limit or such because this comment went through fine.  Still, the point below is essentially the same.


I have been laying low since the bad apples on the climate pages on Wikipedia have been ousted.  That’s good news for the project and from what I can see the writing there has been improving.  It’s not perfect but at least it is directionally correct now that the principle sources of bias have been “neutralized”.  I should write a review of the changes there some time but today I want to share a snapshot of what interacting with WMC can be like.

I offer this account not because I care about the final outcome but because I think it will provide a nice illustration of the blind hypocrisy involved.  WMC just doesn’t see his own failings even when he is projecting them on to others.

The case in point begins with an article on his blog: “Dr” Roy Spencer is sad and lonely and wrong

Note the use of scare quotes around Spencer’s title.  I saw this as an attempt to denigrate the man which I found to be a perfect opportunity to educate WMC about his hypocrisy in this case.  He is being hypocritical because he is known for demanding that others recognize his educational achievements when it suits his purpose.

So I posted a comment on his blog to demand that he treat others like he demands that others treat him.  You can see a webcited version of my original comment here (see number 31)(Aside: I find it is always best to webcite your posts on WMC’s blog because he likes to edit things to fit his own world view.)

Here is a screenshot of the webcited version (click for larger view):

William M. Connolley hypocrisy,

Not surprisingly WMC does not take kindly to this type of feedback since it so obviously mirrors the commentary he is known for directing at others.  As a result he simply edits the post to suit his own world view (i.e. where he is not some delicate shrinking “girly boy” but instead a feared crusader for truth).  You can see the webcite of his editing here.

Here is a screenshot of the edited version (click for larger view):

William Connolley edits comment.

Note how he has removed all hint of wrong doing on his part and instead of recognizing and admitting his faux pas he instead attempts a rather feeble attack in return.

Seeing yet another opportunity to educate him on his own failings I tried to post yet another reply but it seems he is scared to let me post without his approval now, and so I was greeted with:

William Connolley afraid to allow unreviewed comments.

I can only conclude that he can’t take honest feedback to heart.  Instead he buries his head in the sand and tries to call ME delicate.  LOL

What is it that WMC was afraid to let you see?  You can see the content that he blocked below.  Note the links provided and let’s see if he’s man enough to approve it!

Here’s the Blocked Post:

Delicate?  How so?  It seems you’re the delicate one here given what you redacted!  🙂

I admit I didn’t read the other comments on this thread.  They’re typically quite dull. (Feel free to pick whichever meaning of dull you like in this context.)

I do find this comment on your part:

[I have no doubt that he is a real Dr. It is just the way he pushes it so blatantly as a “trust-me-I’m-a” – see his blog header -W]

to be particularly hilarious given your signature “trust-me-I’m-a” attitude on Wikipedia.  Thanks for directing me back so I didn’t miss it!

As I recall, “trust-me-I’m-a” seems to have been your own primary fall back argument on Wikipedia when backed into a corner on some point or another.  Look in the mirror some time.  🙂

Note that last link pretty much says it all on this topic.  I couldn’t have asked for a better illustration of this very point.

Posted by: GoRight | September 30, 2010

The Internet is an Amazing Place

WordPress provides statistics on how many hits your site is receiving and where those hits are originating from (i.e. which websites referred a given user to your site).  I sometimes skim through these results to get a feel for where things are coming from.

Today’s results provide a brief example of what I mean.  This is a low volume site with a niche topic and yet we are getting hits from a mention that was made in a Norwegian blog.  The topic was about Stephen McIntyre and when WMC was mentioned in the comments someone posted a reference to A good example of William M. Connolley’s work on Wikipedia. 🙂  Glad I could help.

I’ve found similar instances in the past (which I won’t bother to dig up) but it amazes me the reach that even a simple, low volume blog can actually have sometimes.

I fear that I have not been spending enough time actually blogging about the abuses that are occurring on a regular basis and so perhaps I should do more along those lines.  If we’re getting mentions in Norway without even putting in a reasonable effort, I wonder what we can make happen if I actually try to advertise this blog a bit.  Hmmm.

Posted by: GoRight | August 27, 2010

I find this funny

Note the use of the terms “believer” and “nonbeliever” in this statement by MONGO on the proposed decision of the Climate Charge Arbitration.  I find this funny because the author clearly does not consider AGW extremists to be a religion and yet here he is talking about the believers and the nonbelievers.  🙂

Posted by: GoRight | August 27, 2010

I must have been busy

IMPORTANT: See my statement found here regarding my own use of sock puppets.

Sorry friends, I have been trying to ignore Wikipedia as much as possible for my own sanity and so I have not been around much to comment.  It doesn’t look like I have missed much.  The Climate Change Arbitration seems to have moved into the proposed decision phase which is good, I guess, but I have been ignoring that like the plague.  I can’t participate and I have chosen not to blog about it either just to let the elephants work things out for themselves.

Ever since the AGW extremists started running around tagging various accounts as alleged sockpuppets of me I periodically like to check back and see what I have been doing.  🙂

You can follow along by watching two primary locations:

There’s really nothing interesting that has changed on the SPI page but today I found a couple of interesting things on my category of suspects page.

First we have MastCell who has just tagged Absit invidia II (talk | contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of mine.  Looking through the edits of this user nothing remarkable to report.  Mostly just chit chat on Lar’s talk page.  Now I realize that I am known for my Latin skills (no, not really) so I can certainly understand how this account was mistaken for me.  The fellow did point out the desperation that MastCell was showing by misrepresenting information to help make his case.  For a science type editor this surprises me, although given the company he has been keeping perhaps it shouldn’t.  Climategate.  Enough said on that point.  I guess MastCell is hoping to get under my skin with this but his attempt is truly misguided as I don’t much care.

Guys, you can suspect as many accounts as you like and you can tag them all.  Get back to me when you can actually tag one as confirmed.  That’s when things might get interesting.  I know this won’t happen so I have no worries.

The more interesting thing today is that there is another user also getting caught up in the hysteria and the paranoia, one Ricky81682 (talk | contribs).  If memory serves (but I’m not going to go back and confirm it) this user has previous been tagged as me.  For some reason someone, somewhere seems to think this guy sounds like me or whatever.

What’s funny is that this is not a new user at all:

Created back in 2004 and an administrator to boot!  Woo hoo!  Now I ask you, if I had control of an administrative account would I ever in a million years be able to resist using it to block various AGW extremists for their shenanigans?  (Hint: There is no way.)  Still, there they are tagging the account as a puppet of mine (wait, wouldn’t I be a puppet of them since they are the older account?).  This is all so confusing.

Note also that whomever tagged this person as a puppet of mine also seems to think that he is a puppet of Scibaby (talk | contribs) too.  Is sockpuppetry transitive?  If so then I guess we are all actually the same person: Scibaby, Ricky, and me.  It would be sad if it weren’t so amusing.  🙂

On a more serious note, however, the accusations are being made by the following IP addresses and edits:

The first two ( track back to the Blackberry network, which we have run into previously.  The last one ( maps back to an old Cingular mobile account that was bought up by AT&T.

So, no major conclusions here other than to notice that the web being used to attempt to snare me is continuing to yield an ever growing number of spurious accusations.  I truly wish I had enough time to really be all of these people AND Scibaby too.  🙂

There has recently been a set of disruptive prank edits to the Climate Change Arbitration pages promoting a faked decision.  A prank such as this is funny this first time.  Beyond that it is disruptive and the true source of such edits should be identified and dealt with.  The following is an email I just sent to the Arbcom-I mailing list regarding these edits and providing evidence to link those edits to the individual I believe is behind these acts (based on behavioral similarities which is the current standard).

From:   GoRight
Date:   Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject:   I am concerned that recent SPI investigations may be aiding some potential sock masters.

I am unable to make a proper SPI request for the obvious reasons, but if I was able to I would would make the following one.  All of these accounts are already blocked and they are being archived in this sockpuppet investigation for Asiddeamong.  This is all well and good but it fails to identify the true sock master in all of this whom I believe is obvious, but YMMV.  As long as the standard of evidence is purely subjective, per the infamous WP:DUCK test or similar, it only seems appropriate that such evidence is considered evenly and without prejudice on both sides of the current ideological factions in the climate change area.

I make this report not out of a purely obligatory stance based on the above, but because I actually believe that the behavioral evidence here is convincing.

Suspected sock master:

Suspected sock puppets:


The style of humor and the views expressed by these obvious sock puppets are identical to the style of humor and recent edits of SBHB.  SBHB has been increasingly snide and cynical in recent months and such is evident in many of his attempts at humor.  He employs a deeply sarcastic tone in such posts and I believe that same tone is clearly evident in the bogus decision that has been floating around.  Now a good natured prank can be appreciated by all, but in this case the disruption is becoming significant and given the sensitivities on all sides a serious attempt should be made to identify the actual sock master.

Over the past few months, most likely longer, SBHB has made no secret of his contempt for Arbcom and what he perceives as the authoritarian abuse of William M. Connolley.  This directly mirrors the content of the fake decision.

It is my belief that NuclearWarfare is actively using their position to both shield his friends from scrutiny and to harass their enemies (for lack of a more politically correct term).  This should not be condoned for the obvious reasons and should be actively put to a stop.

See the following for examples of SBHB edits from over the past month which I believe are representative of the style of humor and/or the views he holds regarding Arbcom and their biases and effectiveness.  I believe that these are all directly reflective of the type of thing that we see in the fake decision being promoted by the accounts listed above:

Those are from the past month or slightly less.  More can be easily made available upon request.


UPDATE I at 03:02PM – 24 August 2010:

To: GoRight
Date: Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Subject: Your message to arbcom-l awaits moderator approval

Your mail to ‘arbcom-l’ with the subject

I am concerned that recent SPI investigations may be aiding some
potential sock masters.

Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held:

Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator’s decision.  If you would like to cancel
this posting, please visit the following URL:


UPDATE II from August 28, 2010 at 9:31 PM:

From: Carcharoth
To: GoRight
Date: Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] I am concerned that recent SPI investigations may be aiding some potential sock masters.


Apologies for the delay in replying. You would need to be unblocked
before filing that sockpuppet case. We don’t have the time or
resources to carry out SPI cases like that during an arbitration case
like this. The functionaries mailing list is the correct place to send
this, but they are unlikely to look at requests from a blocked user.


From: GoRight
To: Carcharoth
Date: Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] I am concerned that recent SPI investigations may be aiding some potential sock masters.

Very well.  Understood.  Thanks for your consideration.  I was just reporting my suspicions so my part is done.  This was not a request to be unblocked at this time but merely the act of a concerned (even if banned) community member.

Good luck with the arbitration case.  I can see you are all having lots of fun.  🙂



Posted by: GoRight | August 8, 2010

MastCell talks the talk …

From Lar’s talkapage:

The solution isn’t to pick the faction you think is disadvantaged and try to give it a boost, nor (as I think you’re doing in this case) to pick the faction which you think is unfairly advantaged and try to take it down a peg. The solution is to create a viable middle ground, and to incentivize editors to occupy that middle ground. The best defense against factionalism is a strong middle ground of reasonable editors who will resist being pulled too far in either direction. But the conditions need to be created and maintained so that such a middle ground can exist, because the natural pull on a controversial issue is always going to be towards the extremes.

MastCell Talk 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

A fine sounding position, if only you walked the walk.  Please, tell us what you have ever done of any substance to foster such an environment?  I would welcome such a place as I think most of those trying to edit from the skeptical position would as well.

No I fear, MastCell, that while you may believe this because it sounds nice I just don’t see how you have taken any action to make it be so.  When you have taken action it has been against those seeking to bring balance to these articles.  You thwart the efforts of those who are attempting to build the middle ground of which you speak.

I recognize that you view me, personally, as being a pure partisan.  A battleground promoter who refuses to compromise.  And indeed this is how I have acted, but out of necessity not out of desire.  I can certainly find common ground and agree to compromise when I am dealing with reasonable people.  The current faction who controls the climate change articles, however, are not visibly acting as reasonable people.

They refuse to compromise.  They dig in on every issue no matter how small.  They constantly maintain a blockade against change … change that is required to find that middle ground.  Or are you of the opinion that the current articles already represent that middle ground nirvana to which you allude?  If so then you are more a part of the problem than you realize.  I don’t believe that you or any of the others are acting in bad faith, but I do believe that you (collectively) are incapable of recognizing your own biases.

I am curious, MastCell, where is this middle ground that you speak of?  What is your vision for what that should be?  Reasonable people want to know.  What do you intend to do to be that change that you feel needs to be made (assuming you at least agree that change is required)?

Rather than talking the talk, MastCell, show us how you can walk the walk here.  Thus far the only actions I can recall from you were to back the actions of the faction that currently controls the climate change articles.  Have you taken actions which could be construed as ever supporting the positions of those who disagree with that faction?  Supporting the actions of one faction and failing to ever support (and at times acting to thwart) the actions of the opposing faction(s) does not appear to be in line with creating and fostering a middle ground.  On the contrary, it would seem to suggest that your words are merely empty rhetoric showing you talking the talk but never actually walking the walk.

Please show me where I am wrong here.  Show me where you feel you have made substantial efforts to foster a compromise between these factions.  Where have you tried to identify and carve out that middle ground?  I invite you to reply here on the blog since, as you know, I am unable to engage you on-wiki in any reasonable fashion.

I would ever so appreciate it if someone would convey a pointer to this to MastCell either on his talk page or via his Wikipedia email.  Thanks.

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »