Misplaced Pages

• GoRight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• Incivility, personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and edit warring on William M. Gray following the implementation of climate change article probation. Diff: (note edit summary: "rv: I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change.") It should be noted that this followed my first and so far only edit to this article. GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page. This conduct represents all four of the behaviours prohibited by this probation: edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. ChrisO (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Tony: I would certainly be content for GoRight to be let off with a warning. The important point about this article probation is that editors should be encouraged to raise their game and end problematic behaviours. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Thparkth: I added the probation template message to the article's talk page , noticed some content I thought was out of place, and took it out. That was my first and only edit to the article. I certainly wasn't expecting GoRight's response, especially not after the initiation of the probation regime. This isn't a case of "using probation as a weapon" - his action was a completely unprovoked personal attack out of the blue. I was under the impression that we were trying to deter that sort of thing. Absurdly, GoRight is now attacking me for adding the template to CC-related articles, which one would have thought was an uncontroversial chore for which I've been thanked. It just shows you can't please some people, I guess. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to GoRight: The article probation notification was posted by myself to Talk:William M. Gray at 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) . Your first comment about the probation was at 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You made your edit to William M. Gray at 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC). Therefore, at the time you made that edit, you knew the probation had been enacted. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Lar: Good idea. The point is to modify unhelpful behaviour, not to punish people. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

(1) I dispute the validity of these sanctions as noted at ANI. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(2) However, in the interest of playing along, the Climate change probation page states the following:

"Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith."

Following the link to disruptive edits we find the following:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well."

It is widely known that ChrisO has been pushing a pro-AGW POV all over the climate change articles over an extended timeframe and he knows that there are multiple editors who disagree with his POV. His summary above clearly indicates that he was aware that others had been objecting to his edit yet he persisted anyway, see "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page." By the above description this is tendentious editing and, assuming that these sanctions are determined to be valid, he should be blocked for 1 year for tendentious editing.

In addition, the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions and so is wholly out of scope for any action against me. I cannot be sanctioned under this probation for behavior that clearly occurred before the probation was in place. HIS edit, however, clearly occurred AFTER the enactment of the sanctions to which he is appealing and so clearly DO fall within the scope of the sanctions. This should be taken into account whether or not the enactment of these sanctions is deemed valid. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• @ChrisO: Clarification. When I said "the edit on which he is relying occurred prior to the enactment of these sanctions" I was responding to your statement that I quoted above, namely "GoRight previously reverted User:Tony Sidaway's edit of the same content: without any edit summary or any explanation or comment on the article talk page.". That edit occurred at 03:06, 29 December 2009 which was before the sanctions were enacted. I apologize for being imprecise. --GoRight (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

• Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that User:ChrisO be cautioned against frivolous requests. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think this request is rather premature. I'd rather let editors get a feel for how the system works before requesting sanctions. GoRight's use of edit summaries for accusations seem a little off and perhaps he should be warned about this (and having said that I think we could all raise our game) . --TS 05:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• In my (completely unqualified) opinion, there is a danger that this probation protocol will itself become a weapon in the war between the two "sides" that it is meant to cool down. I think this request may be an example of that. Thparkth (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect for user:Thparkth opinion here, I do not believe this to be the case. In point of fact I note that User:GoRight and myself are on absolutely opposite sides of the climate "debate" and yet we both hold identical opinions to the enforcement request against both he and User:ChrisO. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify for the benefit of both ChrisO and Nothughthomas that I don't think this is necessarily a bad-faith or even conscious action (using the sanctions as a weapon) but we are all human after all, and we all react fairly predictably when our feelings are hurt. Thparkth (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. As someone who was just blocked for filing a complaint against User:ChrisO I understand that some editors can take enforcement requests personally and in a heated way and all of us are in danger from retribution blocks/bans when we file enforcement actions against admins. That said, I think we should all calm down and take a deep breath and deal with these in a professional and judicial manner. I think it's heartening that both User:GoRight and myself have put aside our editing differences to come together in common ground on the User:ChrisO question (below) and it could serve as a model of team work for this enforcement question as well. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some discussion has to be the first one. The one below is highly frivolous and doesn't count. Let us not let this protocol be used the way Thparkth fears, but instead do as Tony asks and raise our game... work through what was alleged here and whether it has merit and try to do the right thing. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  I concur. We should start from the recognition that GoRight is a known editor who has contributed to the discussions for a very long time. He should not be given special treatment; nor should he be abused. Those who push for harsh sanctions to be applied today will certainly, if successful, find the same standards used against their own conduct. We should first look to our own conduct and ensure that it is in keeping with the best Misplaced Pages practice. --TS 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks Tony. On the diffs given here's my thinking, the application of the article probation notice by ChrisO () seems reasonable enough, that article seems clearly within scope of the sanctions as a BLP of a climate (hurricane) research scientist. The edit by GoRight () may well have merit, I won't pass judgement on it, let the talk page participants decide that. But the edit summary GoRight used wasn't helpful, let's not cast aspersions needlessly. GoRight perhaps should be cautioned that we really need everyone on their best behaviour. I suggest we leave it at that for now. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 05:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's actual edit seems legitimate, at least in the sense that it was well-intentioned. Really the only question is whether he used intemperate language in his edit summary. Perhaps not just GoRight, but everyone involved, should be reminded of the expectation that they behave with the utmost civility and good faith to one another. Thparkth (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it intemperate to assert points that are clearly supported by policy as I have shown above? --GoRight (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's intemperate if you do so using intemperate language! You could have - and in my opinion, should have - written that edit summary in a less confrontational manner. But I don't think it's a hanging offence... Thparkth (talk)

What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information? --GoRight (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

T: Nod. G: What is being asked is that in future you raise your game. As an involved party, be on your best behavior, and cast no aspersions on others. Leave the judgements on behavior of others to the "mean old admins" who are trying to stay out of the edits themselves and who thus can try to make this regime work. We get that you oppose trying this. But we, the larger community, tire of these brushfires and are going to try this. With or without you. Unless you want to be watching from the penalty box, up your game. That applies to everyone. ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally provocative statement and rises to the level of wikithreat. Since this discussion has descended into a battle between (1) a cabal of admins on one side and (2) a vast and diverse coalition of free speech supporters on the other, I strongly suggest consensus for bringing in a fresh batch of admins to deal with this as tempers have clearly boiled over. Respectfully submitted - Nothughthomas (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I haven't been involved in any of this climate change dispute, but I'm inclined to start quickly blocking any users who continue to start or stoke drama, hostility, or other types of disruptive editing around here. Enough is enough. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• At risk of being blocked for having an opposite thought, my thought is that User:GoRight should not be subject to warning. I, more likely than anyone, would find his edits incendiary - as I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as he and we have had more than one run-on - however I thought what he said was 110% perfectly reasonable and did not believe it violated any WP. I move to reject the warning proposal and counter-move to propose consensus for recognition of User:GoRight with a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to improving wikipedia. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  You're welcome to have, and share, your views. VERY welcome. You are just not welcome to act disruptively by filing frivolous requests, engaging in mockery by using the exact wording of others, making claims about other people's rearrangement of sections, and the like. ++Lar: t/c 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to see these restrictions turned into the standard one-upmanship that everything on Misplaced Pages turns into, but "I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change" is not acceptable behavior. Something is a tendentious edit because of the edit, not the editor. Hipocrite (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  See my statement above. And, BTW, you are completely incorrect in your assertion. Tendentious editing is a behavior of the editor, the "edit" itself is inanimate and incapable of exhibiting any form of behavior. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with User:GoRight and I have just awarded him a Barnstar for the contributions he has made to peacefully resolving disputes. This enforcement page is a testament to good will when pro and anti-climate change sides can unite to support free speech. I wish those attempting to stamp it out could take a lesson from User:GoRight and my cooperation. Nothughthomas (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case it appears these sanctions have become another uncivil weapon, with little purpose to achieving a productive and strong NPOV, which it wiki's first principle. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Agreed. User:GoRight should be exonerated and a public apology should be required of the original complainant under penalty of desysoping. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Note: Nothughthomas has been blocked by MZMcBride for disruptive editing.  Sandstein  08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with MZMcBride and Hipocrite that the edit summary is exactly the sort of battleground-like behavior that the community sanction was intended to prevent. But this is a hasty request with no prior warning as required by the sanction. For now, we should close this with a warning to GoRight that he is subject to sanctions if he continues to make combative edits of this sort.  Sandstein  08:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  I will repeat my question from above and direct it to you as well: "What part of my statement used intemperate language? Seriously? Did I use any terms inappropriately given the policies as I have cited them above? Am I allowed to revert tendentious edits which are against wiki policies/guidelines and these very sanctions and to cite that policy or guideline as the reason? I not only cited the relevant behavioral problem that the description of these sanctions had directed me to, but provided a detailed analysis of why the offense was a violation thereof. In what way is this not a model example of an edit summary? For example, how would you have worded the edit summary while providing the same information?" --GoRight (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Here are the words you put into the edit summary: "I dispute that this is WP:UNDUE. I assert that this is a tendentious edit because Chris is a well known AGW POV pusher who knows that there are other editors objecting to this change." I know how this kind of thing can happen when tempers are frayed, but still calling someone "a well known AGW POV pusher" is the sort of thing we all should be aiming to eradicate. Having said that I did think the filing was premature and I think Chris Owen should think carefully about the danger of appearing to use this probation as a weapon with which to settle scores, rather than as a safety valve to prevent the atmosphere steadily degrading. A word or two on your talk page might have been better, or he could have swallowed it during this early bedding-in period when we're all just getting used to working with the sanctions. --TS 09:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with Tony, also as regards ChrisO. GoRight, in reply to your question, calling a colleague "a well known AGW POV pusher" reflects a WP:BATTLE mentality and assumes bad faith. The edit summary is for voicing objections to the edit itself that you revert, but not for attacking the editor who made it.  Sandstein  09:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  What is the politically correct way of saying that his edit "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well", is therefore tendentious and considered disruptive, and therefore is a violation of these sanctions? I was obviously prepared to make that case (see my statement above) which is why I said what I said. I simply wanted to be prepared to bring a case here, should it come to that, which it obviously did. --GoRight (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  One thing that would help (IMHO) is don't do it in edit summaries. The same point, made on a talk page where one has extra wordage to fully give context and where it can be part of give an take, will often seem softer. Edit summaries should strive to be as neutral and judgment free as possible. Again IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to make a note concerning an odd claim that NHT makes: "I am on the absolute opposite side of the climate debate as ". This is bizarre; or show that he is on the skeptic side, just like GR. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; but there is everything wrong with pleading for GR and asking for extra weight by pretending to be on the other "side". William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for sharing that, very significant. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight: On tendentiousness... Many people now have opined that you ought to be given a warning and that ought to be that. The very first real request is not the place to throw the book. But I have to say that your digging in and insisting that even a warning isn't justified... isn't making you look good. After this performance, if you turn up here again, I bet some people will want to treat you much more harshly than if you'd said "Thanks, I'll keep everyone's advice in mind" and went off and done that. IMHO of course. ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Exactly so. And as a summary of the outcome of this discussion you're probably as close as we're going to get: GoRight should consider himself warned, no further action on this, the first occurrence under the article restrictions. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

GoRight (talk · contribs) is warned that further edits of a battleground-like nature will result on sanctions being imposed. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
  
• ChrisO has reverted edits to dog concerning global warming without participating in the discussion in a meaningful way, even though that is an entry under climate change censorship protocols at present. He has also intentionally derailed a discussion in Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley though flippance (see most recent discussion on entries talk page). This entry is also under climate change censorship protocols, subjecting problem editors to exigent sanctions. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)</nowiki>

The enforcement section is not an appropriate place to push POV. The dog article is under heavy and vibrant climate change discussion and is currently tagged for censorship protocols. Derailing a discussion is WP:DWIP. The fact that the derailer, and apparently only he, finds it to be "levity" is irrelevant. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would now like to add to this complaint to note that User:ChrisO, a party to - and subject of - the complaint, is actively reorganizing the placement of the complainants (mine) text which has been intentionally ordered by me for maximum comprehensibility. This is irreconcilable with the fair and impartial adjudication of this complaint and clearly designed to evade and shirk responsibility through an initiative of confusion and muddying. Nothughthomas (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

Dog is not a climate change-related article and is not under article probation. And I hardly think it's a hanging offence to be flippant in response to your assertion that this article probation (sorry, "censorship protocol" ) is reminiscent of Juan Peron's regime. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe this request is in retaliation for my adding the article probation template to Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, which the complainant objects to. -- ChrisO (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

• Does not appear to be a serious request to me. Suggest that the user bringing it be cautioned against frivolous requests. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT. ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Agreed. ChrisO has been editing provactively and attempting to WP:BAIT other users while unilaterally deciding which articles fall under these sanctions, assuming that they actually are valid sanctions since I have presented objections to the enactment thereof at ANI. See , , , . --GoRight (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

what? ++Lar: t/c 05:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I had started my edit prior to the entire page being reorganized. So to clarify, I agree with Nothughthomas, not Lar, in this instance. --GoRight (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Should probably be noted that the Dog article is only "currently tagged for censorship protocols" because Nothughthomas added the tag to it himself, and that only after he created the edit war himself. Thparkth (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I initiated the "discussion." There is no "edit war" currently taking place in dog. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of Dog belies that assertion. Knock it off. We're trying to work through how to make this regime work and you are not helping matters with frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering. ++Lar: t/c 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user makes an accusation against me specifically and by name, I entertain absolute right to respond to that accusation. I suggest other contributors make the choice to stay on-topic. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are new, nearly-single-purpose accounts really welcome to be taking these kind of actions? What can be done to stop random new accounts from showing up on climate related articles and making a bunch of reversions, gumming up the works with requests like this and engaging in what appears to be pointy editing by trying to get the dog article to talk about global warming. I don't see new editors doing whatever evils the scientifically-minded side is accused of and editing Apocalypse to state that global warming is the prophecied biblical end of the world, do I? Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Dog is climate change related? Sounds like wikilawyering to me. -- Pakaran 06:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - ChrisO is now making accusations of bad faith editing against another editor over a CC related topic. See . --GoRight (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

Dismissed Prodego 07:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated / Supplementary Actions

I've blocked Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) for 15 minutes for disrupting this process and wasting time. This sort of frivolous wikilawyering will not be tolerated. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• User Lar had expressed an opinion regarding Nothughthomas here in a dispute involving the same. This means that Lar is an involved editor with respect to Nothughthomas. He then proceeded to block that user, . This is clear abuse of his administrative tools and he should be desysoped immediately. It is clear that his judgment in the use of his tools is impaired. GoRight (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• This may, or may not be true, however my case above is correct and appropriate under the community norms ... regardless of whether I truly believe that he should be desysoped for a 15 minute block. If we are going to have these types of discussions, then its all fair game is it not? We should not be selective in our enforcement of these sanctions should we? --GoRight (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, it's nothing personal. Truly. But if we are going to have these discussions they should be applied equally to all involved. Agreed? --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I object to the manipulation of my edits by ChrisO. See . Standard convention on these pages is that parties to the request are allowed to include comments in the "others" section. --GoRight (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  As noted in the enforcement section for him, ChrisO has also been manipulating my edits. This appears to be a pattern.Nothughthomas (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• @Lar - Please read my request again. Your involvement is with a personal dispute with Nothughthomas and is not related to your position on AGW. You accused him of editing to make a WP:POINT which establishes that you had a preconceived opinion of him prior to you making the block. Your involvement is inter-personal which is what makes the block an abuse of your tools. You should NOT be using your tools against someone you are involved in a dispute with. --GoRight (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by parties against whom enforcement is requested

Nope, doesn't work that way.

My view of AGW is my own business. I have no horse in this race, except as an admin here to help enforce the probation, and get things off to a good start. N seemed to be doing rather pointy things at Dog, and then was in my view actively disrupting this process by filing a frivolous request, mimicking other people's wording, making wild accusations about rearrangment of text and other disruptive activities. He was warned, responded with intransigence, and got a 15 minute block so he/she would know I wasn't kidding (I did that to SPUI once, long ago, it worked then too). He/she doesn't have to fear adding his views, if he isn't trying to derail matters. GoRight asking for everyone's head isn't going to work to derail this, unless we let it.

As always I invite review of my actions, including the block. ++Lar: t/c 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight: Um. No.

That's what we admins are going to be doing here. People who are in need of sanctioning are going to get sanctioned. I've never heard of this guy before tonite. I came to the page, see what's going on, went and looked at Dog and his contribs here, and on his talk page, and drew my conclusions. We are not going to do a 12 step process here. The guy was being disruptive. He was warned, he didn't stop, so I gave him 15 minutes to get him to stop. It's gotten better. End of story, except if he goes back to it, he'll get more. That doesn't make me "involved", we aren't going to play that game. You are involved. You're an editor in this area. I'm not involved and regardless of how many blocks I hand out, I won't be involved. Note your raising this does not give you immunity from being blocked by me, subject as always, with any block to reivew by my peers. ++Lar: t/c 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users

• This request is spectacularly unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• With the best will in the world, I cannot see the basis for a complaint. Lar's comment in full, as cited by GoRight, is:

  "To clarify, there does appear to be some edit warring going on, and it's climate related, but I think it's quite a stretch to say that the dog article is intended to be within the scope of this sanction unless someone is deliberately trying to prove a WP:POINT." If this is an opinion of Nothughthomas, and constitutes "involvement" as such, the connection is rather obscure. --TS 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I felt aggrieved and agressed by my block from Lar, which followed various unspecified threats he made on my Talk page. The block was, ostensibly, for "wikilawyering" for filing an enforcement question against User:ChrisO. The enforcement question, at the time of my block, was supported by 1 editor, opposed by 1 editor (Lar) and a third editor expressed an ambiguous opinion (exclusive of the two interested parties, myself included). I feel it is highly likely I will be subject to a retribution block or ban once the current controversy has died down and attention has been diverted elsewhere. I am in a state of complete mental shock and feel terrorized and stalked. I support immediate desysoping of User:Lar. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Please note that, as I predicted, discussions have now matriculated between User:ChrisO and User:Lar about secretly "off'ing" me when no one is looking. To quote: 'I wonder if the discretionary sanctions permit an admin to just topic ban him from global warming for a month?' ... User_talk:Lar#User:Nothughthomas ... clearly, as I stated, I am now subject to retribution blocks and bans and have no safety unless subject is desysoped. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are we really going down this road so quickly? This request is trivial and vexatious. Lars has acted appropriately and neutrally in all of this so far, and he's earning my admiration. Thparkth (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• wow. I'm stunned by the the two requests (this one and the one about ChrisO). I would support warnings to both users filing the reqests that this sort of gamesmanship, regarding sanctions that should have been implemented years ago, is outside the boundaries of acceptable behavior for this topic area. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• "wikilawyering" is a pejorative term of bad faith to WP:FIVE, with no basis for a sanction. Lars may have prejudice here. There must be a basis for appeal. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  agreed Nothughthomas (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Result

If this is an issue with a particular administrative action of Lar's, this is not the avenue. The action he took appears justified and appropriate. I encourage anyone with issues to discuss it with him on his talk page, or AN/I. I also encourage those who file requests ensure that they are intended to solve problems not cause them. If not, then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'd propose dismissing this request. Prodego 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably I don't have the considerable time to devote to filing complaints against two admins engaged in secretly flood-complaining against users until something sticks. I have just had to defend myself against a Sockpuppet Investigation (which I was exonerated on) that User:ChrisO filed against me but intentionally did not inform me about. At the same time, discussions between that editor and User:Lar are ongoing on this Talk page about "banning me for my own good" as a "discretionary measure" (read: with no stated reason). Clearly, average wikipedia contributors can't be expected to defend themselves against admins who shirk the rules about transparency and public notification to engage in cabal-like attacks on anyone who has the audacity to cross them. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)