TheNeutralityDoctor

Welcome!

Hello, Rush's Algore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Guettarda (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Let me finish?"

In this revert, you write "Let me finish." Finish what, exactly? Why are you reverting back in factually inacurate material? Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am done now. I was trying to clarify the statements as being examples of satirical humor and not scientific facts. You have been misrepresenting what these sources actually say by treating them as something they are not. I will post on the talk page about this. --Rush's Algore (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Warning!

The Gore Effect is covered under WP:BLP. And material that is solely sourced to blogs or other dubious sourcing is not acceptable under that policy. See WP:SPS for acceptable circumstances where such material can be used.

Do please keep in mind that the Gore effect is a slur on a living person - thus reliable sources are particular important. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No it is not a slur, it is satire. Regardless, the text you are objecting to only states that Gore sent a tweet about April which we know is true, and that the next day snow was forecast (and actually fell) which we also know is true. Neither of these is a slur as far as I can see. Please explain how these are slurs. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Satire is used to slur someone (quote from Satire: "its purpose is often not so much humour for its own sake as an attack on something strongly disapproved by the satirist, using the weapon of wit."). But lets call it satire - it still has to adhere to our rules of sourcing. And blogs are never acceptable (except under very limited conditions) in articles - and especially not one covered by WP:BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You reinserted it again[1] i see - do please read WP:BLP and do please focus on WP:BLPSPS. This is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all fine and dandy but, again, how is an accurate statement that Gore sent a tweet a BLP violation? If it's not a violation you have no grounds for asserting BLP standards as being applicable ... at least as far as I can see. And how is an accurate statement that mother nature dumped snow on Colorado even approaching a BLP violation? So, how are we expected to address out disagreement because you taking the text out and me putting it back in seems a waste of everyone's time?

And as far as I can see after quickly reviewing the above policies I still disagree that they apply in this situation. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS these blogs fall under none of the exceptions (not an expert - no evidence of editorial control). Thats strike 1. Strike 2 is that the material is about a living person WP:BLP (specifically Al Gore). Satire is not an excuse to void policy. Do also please note this section:

This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

Don't. Just. Don't. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What's contentious about whether Al Gore sent the tweet? Do you dispute it? What's contentious about mother nature dropping snow on Colorado? Do you dispute it happened? These are the pertinent facts being discussed, no? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it about Gore? (yes it is). Is Gore a living person? (I think so). Is it questionably sourced? (yes it is). Does WP:BLP allow this? (No it doesn't). Does it matter whether it is negative/positive/neutral? (No it doesn't). READ THE POLICY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you should be in doubt about the "slur" part - then this comment shows it rather efficiently. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How so? That comment discusses ridiculing and criticizing Gore, not the use of the term "The Gore Effect". I don't consider the two to be equivalent. I disagree that the latter is a slur, it is simply a joke made at the expense of a celebrity. This happens to all celebrities. No one actually thinks the effect is real, except perhaps the satirically challenged and those who demonstrate a profound lack of a sense of humor. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And what exactly do you think ridicule is? Do you think that it is acceptable under WP:BLP? Do you think that because it is humor it somehow voids WP:BLP? Bad sourcing is not acceptable under WP:BLP - no matter if its positive/negative/neutral. And BLP is by far the policy taken most seriously on Wikipedia. Don't play with it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are equating the accurate statement that Gore sent a tweet with ridicule. This is obviously a fallacious position to take. You are also equating the topic of the article, "The Gore Effect", with ridicule which is equally fallacious. If you were correct on the latter point the article itself would not be allowed to exist, and yet here it is. Reading the comments on the deletion thingie I don't see everyone claiming it is a BLP violation so you seem to be on thin ice with your assertion. Either way I am obviously no expert but there must be experts around that can resolve the issue, no? How do we find such people? --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's a slur or satire or even praise is entirely beside the point. We have very specific standards regarding sources for comments about living people. That's what matters here. Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a "comment about a living person", it makes no judgment of the man either way. That he sent a tweet is verifiably true. I sincerely doubt that making verifiably true statements violates the policy. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend you get a third opinion at the BLP noticeboard as to the appropriateness of using Twitter. Guettarda (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, Rush's Algore, may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it It could be seen as derogatory towards democrats as a group. Al Gore. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may file for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account and use that for editing. Thank you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concern with me as I wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy in this regard. I do not believe that my user name says anything about "democrats as a group", be it derogatory or otherwise. Could you please explain why you believe this is the case as I may simply not be seeing the same connection that you are. Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal, especially if you're not aware, but if you look at http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en#q=%22algore%22&hl=en&safe=off&prmd=v&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=blg:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wb&fp=1&cad=b it's sometimes used as a negative euphamism for Gore. So really, it's my mistake for saying democrats in general. Still, it could possibly cause controversy. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. I am aware of the use of "Algore" by Rush Limbaugh as a humorous reference for "Al Gore", obviously, so we are talking about the same thing only disagreeing on the scope of the reference. Still your point is well taken and I shall take your advice under consideration. Thanks. --Rush's Algore (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed my user name per this request. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I see you started editing on June 11. I'm curious, have you edited in the past under another account name? Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Have I done something wrong? --Rush's Algore (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit summaries match up perfectly with a certain community banned user. Would you say this is a coincidence? Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I doubt that using edit summaries is a particularly unique identifier so yes, it would appear that we have a coincidence. What is it about my edit summaries that you feel is so unique? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding sock puppetry. The thread is User:GoRight and User:TheNeutralityDoctor (formerly User:Rush's Algore).The discussion is about your account. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, TheNeutralityDoctor, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

Please choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines. However, do not create a new account if you wish to credit your existing contributions to a new name through a username change. To request a username change:

1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to edit this talk page even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a list of names that have already been taken. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.

If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

And that's before we even start applying the duck test. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is simply prejudice name harassment ... for a similar example see: User:Neutrality is a fine up standing Wikipedia. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct but given all the controversy surrounding this account I might as well just start fresh. Thank you for your support.

I was going to add the following information to the GoRight SPI page where I (i.e. TheNeutralityDoctor) am currently being debated. I offer it now not in support of myself because I intend to move on to another account, but in support of GoRight whom I have inadvertently drawn into question.

Hipocrite seems to be implying, or at least he is not pointing out, what B has pointed out and that is that simply because GoRight and I happen to properly use punctuation we must be the same person is simply fallacious thinking.

So I decided to check into some of the other names on the list of people he identified. He seemed to think that Poodleboy and Grundle2600 were the most suspicious so I started there. Poodleboy does not seem to use the "new section" convention when creating section headers which makes his stats hard to count. Given that I moved on to Grundle2600. Counting back through Grundle2600's contributions using the browser's search function looking for "new section" here's what I found:

With ".": 33

Without: 37

Other: 29

This is for December 1, 2009 through present. I stopped counting at December 1, 2009 simply because continuing would have been a silly exercise in tedium.

I am emphatically NOT saying that I am Grundle2600 (obviously, duh). Indeed I believe this whole exercise is ridiculous, but what this does show is that none of GoRight, Grundle2600, nor I are unique in our statistical variations in this respect. There will be others who likewise vary from the norm in this respect and given the size of the editor pool on Wikipedia there could be literally hundreds of people who run afoul of this silly little test.

If you look at the contribution histories of other people, including Hipocrite himself, you will find that while it may not be a high percentage of their section headers people do put punctuation there. Just bring up a couple of thousand edits of someone's history and then use the browser search to look for ".: new section". It will take you directly to where they have used this construct.

So, using Hipocrite as a test subject for December 1, 2009 through present he has used this construct approximately 32 times himself. That's a rate comparable to Grundle2600 in terms of uses per month. Hipocrite's percentage of "." to none or other will be much lower, however, owing primarily to the long winded nature of the test subject.

In any event as a test of uniqueness for a particular individual this whole "." in section headers idea seems rather dubious.

Cheers,

--TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, you don't appear to be blocked or ever have been. Nor would a user name block be anything resembling acceptable. I'm not sure why JzG left that template. He may have intended to leave the template {{uw-username}}. You are not currently blocked (at least not by name - if your IP were blocked, I wouldn't know.) Whether you are or are not GoRight is a separate issue. I happen to believe that you are, though, as I said, that's a separate issue. --B (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• No idea what that was about, sorry, all, perhaps my brain was addled after suffering concussion last Friday. As you were, everyone. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all the fuss. TheNeutralityDoctor should just pick a different name. Case solved. Seems crazy to ban a user over something this trivial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. The sockpuppet investigation was closed as inclusive inconclusive because there was a lack of definitive evidence to support the allegation.[2] Why was this account blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In'conclusive? That was merely for the CU evidence. But, as I understand it, the behavioural evidence was thought convincing, as was the use of open proxies by both GR and TND. Can think of a good reason why GR would wish to edit from an open proxy? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it was for the sockpuppet investigation as a whole. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. If this conclusion was reached elsewhere, can you show me where, please? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

People edit from open proxies for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with sockpuppetry. The fact that two users edited with open proxies in no way suggests that they are the same user. Note that the user is not blocked for abusing multiple accounts, however. He is blocked for "disruptive editing. See User talk: Coren for his explanation that the proxies of the two users cannot be compared, and no conclusion can be made about whether or not this user is a sock of another user. What's interesting is that William M. Connolley inquired about the open proxies on Coren's talk page at 9:21 AM (CST), and this block coincidentally happened by NW less than thirty minutes later. Weird. By the way, I stumbled upon by way of Coren's talk page. Minor4th • talk 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most or all of that is wrong. In particular, TND's block log says 2010-07-05T14:47:35 NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) blocked TheNeutralityDoctor (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight) so TND *is* indeed blocked for "abusing multiple accounts". Are you having problems reading the log? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

But he has not actually abused multiple accounts has he, he used the algore one and then changed it to this mark nutley (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So why was he blocked for sockpuppetry if the sockpuppet investigation came up empty? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

I see that many editors around here have a hard time dealing with the fact that I am not actually GoRight. I see people running around tagging and untagging all of those suspected but unproven accounts as sock puppets of this GoRight fellow. This is all well and good, I suppose, but clearly suspected is not proven so anyone can tag anyone else as being a suspected sock puppet of yet another anyone else. It is a meaningless assertion, especially on an already blocked account which means that asking people to watch it's editing behavior is sort of, lets say, intellectually challenged. Go find something useful to do.

Now, my point of clarification is that I see people talking about the fact that I have used open proxies to edit here. These occur here and here, but there may be others and I have no intention of obsessing over this. It seems that because the check user indicated that I had, in fact, made use of open proxies (which is true) people are making the unfounded assumption that I have edited only through open proxies. This is simply not true and your check user friend should be able to confirm this.

I tend to make use of open proxies on the internet as a security measure and doing so should be uncontroversial. Lots and lots of people do the same every day. When it became obvious that I had stepped into some sort of war zone here I stopped using open proxies on Wikipedia as a means of distinguishing myself from GoRight under the assumption that he too would have a real ISP IP in his editing history (thus allowing the check user to distinguish us).

Indeed, the SPI case just before mine was closed indicating that they knew where GoRight was located so they must have had his IP information at some point. Why they no longer have it I haven't a clue. The point is the check user does have the real IP data for my most recent edits, including this one. My IP happens to be dynamically assigned by my ISP but it is NOT an open proxy for sure.

So you should not be assuming that I have only used open proxies to edit Wikipedia. The check users do have my real ISP IPs.

This matter could be easily resolved if GoRight would simply log in again using his regular ISP IP address so that the check users can compare our IPs. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to tell myself (a non-checkuser), Coren (checkuser), or Brandon (checkuser) what these regular ISPs are? NW (Talk) 11:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, speaking as someone that uses open proxies as a security measure I respectfully decline to post anything about myself or my account on a public forum such as this. That having been said, I have trusted your check user friends sufficiently that I have edited using my real IP so that they could distinguish me from others. They have my IPs, including the one for this comment, and a simple whois lookup using my IPs will readily reveal my ISP to them. They should all be from the same ISP and they are free to do whatever checks they want on them to satisfy themselves that they are not open proxies. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought open proxies were supposed to be hard-blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, may I please be unblocked now?

In light of the unambiguous statement made by the checkuser here, may I please be unblocked now with an appropriate notation made in my block log? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I'm not very familiar with GoRight, but I went through the behavioral evidence and the CU comments and I can't say for certain whether you are a sock of GoRight or not. However, looking at the bigger picture, it is quite obvious that this is not your first account. Your editing pattern combined with the use of open proxies make it very hard to believe that this is legitimate use of multiple accounts. Therefore, I lean towards not supporting an unblock. I would not oppose unblocking if another admin sees it appropriate. Prolog (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that this guy is a sock. he ought to be unblocked mark nutley (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not give him the benefit of the doubt and unblock him? If he starts editing disprutively, block him then. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point? He can just as easily get a new account William M. Connolley (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The point is not to starve the project of potentially good editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But the person editing as TND is available to the project. All they have to do is get another user name, and these are free. As long as they don't edit in a disruptive way there will be no problem and no CU William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If CC is one of their areas of interest, they will be (correctly) accused of being a sock puppet. If the use the same account, at least we get to keep track of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick scan of their edits reveals that if they stick to actually improving articles rather than hanging out on talk, and do so by actually adding content rather than inflamatory see-also's, there will be little chance of them being detected William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, as someone who is familiar with GoRight, the behavioral evidence makes a good (though not conclusive) case that this is GoRight (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight/Archive#30 June 2010). Editing through an open proxy is, in any case, forbidden and the editing pattern makes it obvious that this is not a new user. The overall pattern suggests that whoever this is, it is most likely someone who is attempting to evade a previous restriction. As such, I would not lift the block either. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing through an open proxy is, in any case, forbidden: no, see Wikipedia:Open proxies but note the checkuser section, which is relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not forbidden, no, but by policy an open proxy can be blocked at any time without the need to demonstrate vandalism or any other abuse. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare, the point is ...

In the above conversation William Connolley asks, "What would be the point? He can just as easily get a new account."

This is a good question and originally that was my stated intent. In fact, I will probably avail myself of that option if allowed to do so. But here's the rub, since I originally stated that intention I have taken the time to read the blocking and banning policies. It is now clear to me that if I were to simply create a new account and begin editing from there that I would be violating the restriction on evading this block (which being indefinite I understand is customarily interpreted to be a site ban).

Now it is true that I could simply take my chances, as William Connolley suggests I do above, and evade this ban with a new account without bothering to get this one unblocked first. This approach, however, leaves me open to being blocked again for having evaded this block. I wish to avoid violating the site policies in this way (along with all of the entanglements which would inevitably ensue) and hence my request to have this account unblocked first which is a requirement of making a fresh start as I understand it.

There is also the matter of simply doing the proper thing here. If I am not GoRight then my account should not be tagged as being GoRight. If I have not abused multiple accounts I should not be blocked for having done so. When NuclearWarfare blocked me he stated as part of his rationale that I was editing using open proxies. Given the information available to him at that time it was not an unreasonable assumption on his part that I would have been editing using only open proxies and under that assumption his action of blocking me could arguably be justified.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this assumption was incorrect and NuclearWarfare is now in possession of an email from a checkuser which no doubt confirms that I am telling the truth on this point. While I may have started out editing using open proxies (which as William Connolley helpfully points out is not forbidden), the reality is that I am no longer doing so and I had stopped doing so since before I was blocked. This would seem to render the open proxy objections rather moot. The checkusers have my IP information and if I continue editing under a different account without utilizing open proxies (because I don't want to step in the same mess again) they will be able to track that account back to this one.

So it seems that I have no choice but to pursue getting this account unblocked even if I wish to start fresh with another.

Even if we can all accept that NuclearWarfare's original block was justified given the state of his knowledge at that time, the question remains what he will choose to do now that he is in possession of information which clearly contradicts his original assumptions (and to be fair others had made those same faulty assumptions)? Will he choose to stubbornly cling to his original decision or will he step back and reassess the situation based on this newly available information?

Personally I think it would be best for everyone involved if he would take that step back rather than asking others to undo his mistake. There is no shame in having boldly made one decision based on incomplete information and then being intellectually honest enough to reverse that decision based on the arrival of new and conflicting data. Indeed, doing so would seem to confirm his good intentions and his fair and honest application of policy.

I could put up a formal unblock request (and I may be forced to do so eventually) but I prefer to give NuclearWarfare the opportunity to reflect on this matter and correct his own mistake. He has blocked me for abusing multiple accounts and one of the key premises upon which he took that action has now been demonstrated to be false. An independent checkuser has not only indicated that they have no evidence that I am GoRight, but that they have no evidence that I am anyone else either. This is a strong statement based on objective criteria.

My question to you, NuclearWarfare, is given this turn of events what is your basis for continuing to contend that I am abusing multiple accounts? If you lack a clear and conclusive rationale to justify that contension, does this site's policy of assuming good faith not demand that you reverse the block you have imposed on me? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that the above could far more easily be summed up as "Yes I am GoRight", don't you? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You were not a new user when you started this account - that much is obvious from your early contributions. Separately, I suspect that the number of brand-new users who start out editing Wikipedia through open proxies is vanishingly small. Some people may come to develop privacy concerns after they've been here awhile, but that's rather different. The combination of "not a new user" and "editing from open proxies off the bat" is a powerful red flag.

Combine that with the fact that GoRight also used open proxies. Combine with the overlapping focus. Combine with the fact that (as William pointed out) the above post is exemplary of the sort of fine, legalistic parsing that GoRight was (in)famous for. Checkuser can't "prove" anyone's innocence - it's a technical tool that provides a piece of evidence, to be weighed with other pieces of evidence.

More to the point, what do you hope to accomplish on Wikipedia if you're unblocked? What do you see yourself doing here? You came here with a username that explicitly called out a partisan position on climate change, and your edits were uniformly in line with that partisan position. One could conceivably feel that the very last thing Wikipedia needs is another tenacious, verbose, legalistic climate-change partisan. What should we expect if/when you're unblocked? MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the two of you must have somehow missed this part: "My question to you, NuclearWarfare, is ..." Your respective positions on this issue are well known and certainly lacking in purity of intent.

The bottom line here is that when it was clear that people were operating under false assumptions I sought to clear the matter up regarding the open proxies. I waited patiently as the check user did their job and am pleased to say that they have completely confirmed my claims in that regard. The only thing remaining is unfounded conjecture regarding the implications of my use of common words and phrases and the proper use of punctuation along with a whole lot of interjection and wishful thinking on the part of GoRight's apparent enemies.

MastCell asks, "what should you expect if/when I am unblocked?" Why only good things, of course. I am not now, nor have I ever been a threat to this project.

But enough about me. My story is now an open book. I am more interested in seeing the stuff that NuclearWarfare is made of. Will he stubbornly stick to a decision which is now known to be based on false premises, or will he step back and do the right thing based on the site's policies including assuming good faith? As I state above no one will blame him for having made his initial decision in this case, but he now knows that I wasn't trying to evade detection. Quite the contrary since I voluntarily stopped using proxies even before I was blocked.

If you still feel you have a credible case that I am abusing multiple accounts, NuclearWarfare, please put it forth. Otherwise, do the proper thing and unblock me. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I will not unblock you. You may wish to read [3]. NW (Talk) 04:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I had not seen the threads on your talk page. Very well, it seems you have chosen to simply wash your hands of the matter. That says about all that needs to be said here, I guess, your intentions are clear. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

TheNeutralityDoctor: You are not helping yourself by failing to provide direct answers to reasonable questions. " Why only good things, of course." is not a meaningful answer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A fair point. I apologize. I have been more forthcoming to MastCell's question below. You can expect me to officially retire this account and to make a fresh start with a new one. You can expect me to edit in areas that interest me which will include the climate change articles, among others.

This entire episode seems to have arisen out of the fact that I was giving Hipocrite a hard time on a talk page. Fine, that was bad. But it should not be surprising given that he almost immediately started attacking me, and was asking his friends to accuse me of being a sock puppet of some other user, Scibaby in that case. Note that after my disagreement with him I had even reached out with an unsolicited apology. I didn't find out about the previous sock puppet accusation until I noticed the above referenced conversation which appeared after my having made the apology.

At this point I just want to move on. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for supposedly abusing multiple accounts based on the faulty assumption that I had only been editing through open proxies (details are explained on this talk page). NW then asked for a check user to be run to verify what I was saying. That result can be found here. It confirms that check users unambiguously believe that I have not been using other accounts, including GoRight. NW now indicates that he was unsure of his judgment and so passed the matter off to Prolog for review. Prolog indicated that he was unconvinced that I am a sock puppet of GoRight but considered the facts surrounding my case suspicious enough that he declined to unblock me. He did, however, indicate that he would not object if I could find someone else who would be willing to do so.

I wish to begin with a fresh start and a new account but I am currently barred from doing so because I would be technically evading this block. I have no wish to violate the rules and I have sought to cooperate fully in terms of ceasing the use of open proxies (which I do as a security measure on other parts of the internet) before I was even blocked and changing the name of my account when asked to do so because my original name might be considered controversial. Any similarities between myself and this GoRight fellow, who seems to have a lot of determined individuals trying to stir up trouble for him, are purely coincidental and beyond my control.

Decline reason:

It doesn't look like anyone is interested in dealing with this so I suggest you contact the arbitration committee directly to appeal this block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Yes/no question: Have you used other Wikipedia accounts before this one? MastCell ^Talk 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Other registered accounts on English Wikipedia? No.

I am familiar with the MediaWiki software from contexts outside of Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia. It should be no surprise that the MediaWiki software is popular and used in other contexts. I learned everything I needed to know about the specifics of this environment simply by copying and hacking existing wiki text from the pages I was editing.

Is there any chance that you might actually unblock this account so that I can legitimately make a fresh start, or are you just curious? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to be handling your unblock request one way or the other. I think it's highly likely that you're GoRight, in which case I would be too "involved" (by virtue of previous interactions) to feel comfortable taking administrative action. I recognize that it's possible I'm wrong about that. However, I feel pretty strongly that adding additional agenda-driven single-purpose editors to the climate-change arena is not really a good move regardless, which inclines me against your unblock request on general principles. So either way, I've formed a fairly strong opinion about the situation, and you're entitled to have a fresher and less jaundiced set of eyes review your unblock request. So I guess you could file it under "curiosity". MastCell ^Talk 02:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But now I'm "curious". Are you, per chance, at all familiar with the argumentation style known as Poisoning the well? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Original unredacted version. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that pretty much cements my opinion of what we can expect if you're unblocked. And, for that matter, my belief that you're GoRight. If you can't refrain from this kind of rhetoric while you're actively seeking an unblock and presumably on best behavior, then all the more reason why you shouldn't be turned loose in the climate-change arena, which is already overpopulated with agenda accounts and combatants. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful advice as it serves to illustrate my main point. Please note that the remaining question is not necessarily rhetorical. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And as if on cue to make my point, [4]. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is ludicrous. A check user confirmed that he is not a sock, he explained the open proxy issue and stated that he would not use it again on Wikipedia, yet he remains blocked? Other users have used Tor in the past (Hipocrite comes to mind) and are currently allowed to edit because they don't use proxies anymore. And the advice from WMC to just evade the block is insane. He should be unblocked immediately. Anything less is punitive and unjust. GregJackP Boomer! 14:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Please don't make things up about me. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I wasn't making things up. See here - or did I misinterpret it that you weren't going to come back without being able to use Tor-networks? If I was incorrect and you care to clarify, I'll be happy to strike my statement. Or was it the socking that you promised not to do anymore? Whichever is the case, it is still an appropriate example. You seem to be able to edit freely now, and TND should also be allowed to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said - please don't make things up about me. If you'd like to discuss me, the place to do it is my page, but if you continue to make things up about me, I'll seek redress. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What have I made up? I provided a diff and asked if I were mistaken in my interpretation. If I am, I'll be happy to strike that comment. The same with the ancient socks (PouponOnToast and related) - you got another chance and are editing, and I feel that TND should be given the same courtesy. Nothing was made up. Regards. GregJackP Boomer! 18:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're still failing to understand CU. CU did not confirm that he isn't a sock, because it can't. CU can confirm that people are socks, sometimes, but not the other way round. The advice to edit under a new account is good, or at least it would be if this wasn't GR, which TND is William M. Connolley (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC: I'm a bit uncomfortable with you advising a user to break the rules in order to skirt the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How much is your personal comfort relevant here? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WMC: None. I was just phrasing my post in a civil manner. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As somewhat of an outsider, I have to say the wikilawyering above sure sounds familiar from past readings. I think this is a sock and it should stay blocked with no permission to use another account. I think if after 6 months and no socking of any kind the the standard agreement may be applied. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, far too many people on this site seem to be predisposed to assume the worst so you are not alone. Which part of my request do you consider to be "wikilawyering"? --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're not GoRight, you're doing a truly outstanding job of imitating his rhetorical devices and writing style. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a different approach. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you are not GoRight. Why are you using open proxies through which to edit? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Short Version:

I utilize open proxies as a tool to help protect my real life identity from potential nut jobs on the internet.

The Long version:

Wikipedia is not the only on-line site that I post to. I have only recently begun editing here. As my original name might suggest I am no stranger to editing on the various political blogs such as the DailyKos, Red State, and Democratic Underground just to name a few. I participate on blogs of all political persuasions using different identities on each (i.e. I don't use Rush's Algore or TheNeutralityDoctor on any of these).

It may come as a surprise to some people, but there are lots of bad people who frequent these places. People who wouldn't be afraid to fire bomb the house of someone that don't like or to hurt their family or whatever (for example ELF and PETA come to mind). Because of this I pro-actively seek to hide my real life identity to the greatest extent possible when posting on these site, even going so far as to obscure my IP address because you never know who is running and administering these sites. Staying anonymous is something that you have to pay attention to right from the very start. Once your information is out there you can't change your mind and get it back.

I came here because somewhere I was reading about the Gore Effect article and how it was being proposed that it get deleted. I found the article amusing so I decided to try and help make it better so that it wouldn't get deleted. Given that climate change has the potential to attract eco-terrorists I simply chose to protect my anonymity from the very start by taking the rather obvious precaution of obscuring my real world IP address via open proxies.

When I first created my account there was no sign anywhere saying that people couldn't edit using open proxies. Indeed, William Connolley has helpfully pointed out that doing so is not itself forbidden. Later after I started being accused of being this GoRight fellow it became obvious that editing using open proxies is frowned upon here, or at least was considered suspicious, and so I stopped using the open proxies. I did so simply because I judged the risk of exposing my IP to the few check users who could see it here was a minimal risk compared to, say, giving your IP address to the owners and maintainers of DailyKos, for example, or Red State.

I have not edited using an open proxy since I stopped doing so which was before I was blocked for allegedly abusing multiple accounts. Your check users can confirm this for you is you like.

So in the end I started using open proxies to edit here simply because I typically do so for all of my anonymous activities. It was not a special case for me to do so, nor was it intended as a deceptive act. It was just being prudent.

Hopefully that clears the matter up a little better than my prior attempts to explain the whole thing above. --TheNeutralityDoctor (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)