Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 2 January 2010

Thanks for a chuckle

Very droll! I'm glad we've been able to make some progress with that article. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You are about to be blockd for disrupting Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement. Knock it off. ++Lar: t/c 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

detail my disruption; otherwise I consider this to be a serious threat Nothughthomas (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 15 minutes. I wasn't kidding. ++Lar: t/c 05:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|User:Lar blocked me for 'wikilaywering' after I clarified/defended an accusation made specifically against me by name in Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement ... clearly it is irreconcilable to call a contributor a "wikilawyer" for defending himself against accusations made against him; I have ever confidence the current discussion at the above page will support my position - further, I request some form of protection from User:Lar whom I believe will now target me for banning in "retribution" as he has already blocked me once for "retribution" purposes}}

To reviewing admins, who may happen by before this block expires in a few minutes, just review the above sections to see why "wikilawyer" is an apt description. This user needs to up his or her game, to quote Tony. I always welcome review of my blocks though. ++Lar: t/c 05:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I also welcome full review of the above sections, which I believe will exonerate me. Users have a right to defend themselves against accusations being levied against them by name. Whether or not you want to label that "wikilawyering" is, ultimately, rather irrelevant and suggests a user should "lay back and enjoy the rape." Nothughthomas (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since we can't undo a block that has already expired it's pretty much moot. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Nod. However uninvolved admins can opine on whether it was merited or not. Nothughthomas can ask for such review here (by reinstating the unblock) or at AN/I or my talk page (It has a lot of watchers, 300some last I checked) or any of several other venues, if he or she wishes. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please don't use my Talk page as a vehicle to note your popularity. Thank you for considering this request. Nothughthomas (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • It's about lots of eyes seeing your request, not my "popularity"... I have no reason to fear scrutiny of my actions. On the other hand... for full and fair consideration, you ought to restore the sections of your talk you removed, they show the wikilawyering tendencies that I spotted as soon as I saw you. Hiding parts of your talk is within your rights but tends to reflect poorly. ++Lar: t/c 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Please don't see conspiracies where they don't exist. Like many users I delete things on my talk page after discussion has run its course. This is how I keep track of messages. Perhaps you can busy yourself with your own talk page instead of providing counsel and guidance to others? BTW - the term "wikilawyering" is a pejorative term of bad faith to WP:FIVE. Please stop junking up my Talk page. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
          • If you want a review of the block and the circumstances around it' that includes this removed material which was a good part of what I evaluated in issuing the warning, and the block. Hope that helps clear up your confusion. As for conspiracies where they don't exist???? I have no idea what you are talking about there. ++Lar: t/c 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Incendiary and frantic protestations that I am "hiding" material is bizarre and off-kilter conspiracy mongering. Everything is archived in the edit history. As for whatever you're going on about regarding reviews, etc., I have no idea what you're talking about. PLEASE - WILL YOU PLEASE - LEAVE ME ALONE? I don't know what I did to deserve this maniacal stalking but, whatever it is, I promise I won't do it again if you'll just please stop targeting me. I've apologized many times for disagreeing with you in public and promised it won't happen again. I don't know what else I can do. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be wrong about AGW

but you seem like an alright guy - it is nice to see someone not so wrapped up in ideology that they ignore truly important principles like freedom of speech. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change sanctions (permanently retained on Talk page due to amusing conclusion)

If you want to help solve the sorts of problems you are describing, you need to allow the sanctions process to work. That means you can not disrupt it with frivolous requests such as this one. I assure you - it was disruptive, and if you do not see at as such I'd suggest avoiding making enforcement requests altogether. This mess will be cleaned up, make sure you are part of the solution, not the problem. Prodego 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

By "mess" do you mean the discussions between User:Lar and User:ChrisO about how to "ban" me if none of the complaints they've been filing against me (all of which have, to date, been dismissed) without notifying me don't hold up? No one likes being the subject of "backdoor" discussions by two disaffected admins who took an action that ended up being unpopular and are now striking out and flailing around, punching everyone who has had the audacity to protest it. Nothughthomas (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as you coolly make your points and do not cause disruption, you are very much welcome to be part of the debate about writing a neutral article. But we are not going to tolerate disruption, that has been a problem for too long in this area. Consider this a new beginning, and you will do well. Hold grudges, complain about other editors, etc, and you will not. It is really up to you. Prodego 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, no grudges were being held. In fact, model teamwork, in my opinion, was at play. In the most heated thread, User:GoRight and myself - who have both had run-ins with each other over the climate change issue - were acting so cooperatively that we ended up awarding each other barnstars. I had a complaint with 2 specific mods. I exercised my rights to raise issue with cases of abuse by filing one civil complaint in the appropriate place, notifying each. They responded by filing multiple complaints about me, without notifying me, and then engaging in a discussion with each other about how they could "ban" me if none of those complaints "stuck." I think my reaction is indicative of the reaction any reasonable person would experience under that circumstance. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you could write me a short summary (I am not interested in reading an essay), and email it to me, I promise you I will give it a fair review. But I'd remind you, there isn't going to be tolerance for disruption, and the two requests you filed can't be seen as anything but. Prodego 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again - and as the logs show - I only filed one complaint in the probation enforcement section. As evidenced by this misperception, I fear the type of misinformation being intentionally spread by an agenda driven individual would make any effort I made to exonerate myself moot. My only option is to apologize to User:Lar for disagreeing with him in public, stop participating in editing[REDACTED] entries related to climate change and pray he stops going after me. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to your comments in the second section, you are correct, you didn't file it, that was my mistake. However, Lar is correct in that you were disrupting the process, and after your response to him I can understand the block. But again, what I'd suggest you do is to follow the advise I left you above when the block expires. Your input is valuable, but only if it is provided constructively. I'd encourage you not to push this issue, take it as a lesson learned and move on. And most importantly, don't do it again, and nothing like this will happen again. Prodego 08:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what again? Aside from questioning Lar publicly, no one has been able to point to a single specific example of what I did that I'm not supposed to do. We had a situation where two mods felt backed into a corner and they picked me to cruxify and make an example to the many other people protesting their action to stop crossing them. Until someone can cite a specific example, aside from filing one civil and tempered complaint, of what I did I will remain completely befuddled. I shan't hold my breath anything will be forthcoming. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This. Prodego 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit you cited was made by User:GoRight. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

NOTE FOR PERSONAL RECORDS: THE BELOW UNBLOCK REQUEST WAS UPHELD ON THE BASIS OF "DISRUPTIVE EDITING" WITH NO CITATION TO THE "DISRUPTIVE EDITING" IN QUESTION. CURRENTLY I HAVE MADE FIVE REQUESTS TO DIFFERENT ADMINS FOR SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF DISRUPTIVE EDITING AND HAVE YET TO HAVE ONE PRODUCED.

Hi Nothughthomas. After having looked through your recent contributions, it appears that you're precipitating drama and not editing collaboratively. Your edits over the past few days have been nearly exclusively in contentious areas and have been largely unhelpful and borderline (or clearly over the line) disruptive. I've blocked you for 24 hours in the hope that you can take a step back and come back (either in 24 hours or longer) refreshed and ready to edit productively. Your current editing trend simply cannot continue here. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

With all due respect to MZMcBride I believe the valued mod may have stumbled into a deep situation, or been directly contacted by User:Lar about a deep situation and briefed only incrementally - about which they are not fully aware. I'd implore anyone to please fully read the discussion that occurred here and take my defensive posture as reasonable under the circumstances. Further, I earnestly request aid and assistance from any so-inclined mod as I am clearly being overwhelmed with "retribution" attacks by two mods after a decision they made became very unpopular and they were frantic about the reaction to it. While I respect the right of mods to make unpopular decisions we can't allow them to stifle debate or discussion about those decisions when they feel they're "backed into a corner." It is inappropriate to use my relative novice WP status, and ensuing inability to launch a cohesive defense for myself, as a way to effectively "off" me through wikilawyer tactics and multiple backdoor complaints against me (none of which I've been informed about) until they can get one to 'stick.' Please see full threads here: Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Result

Decline reason:

Citing the behavior of others and making oblique accusations does not justify your disruptive editing. Please read Misplaced Pages:Guide to appealing blocks, and in future edit in a more collaborative spirit. You may also wish to consider the policy WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 2 January 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.

... this was a complex issue so really that page needs a complete read for total understanding