Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:58, 30 January 2010

Historical References

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

Content I could be updating right now ... if only I could edit.

Assault rifle#Assault rifles vs. Assault weapons

Current text:

It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine , and two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Primary pistol grip
• Forward grip
• Threaded barrel (for a Suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
• Barrel shroud

This is incorrect per the definitions found in the law itself, . The relevant section, SEC. 110102(b)(30) of the statute reads:

(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

(iii) a bayonet mount;

(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

(v) a grenade launcher;

Blocked (2)

Despite numerous warnings, lengthy detailed discussions with friendly and neutral editors, and formal sanctions, you have chosen not to abandon your apparent determination to be a drain on the volunteer resources of the community rather than an asset to the project. You have been editing in spurts since late 2007, and have amassed nearly five and a half thousand edits. You have a fine mind, a keen eye for detail, and an admirable willingness to stand against the tide. You could have chosen to be a great boon to this project. Instead, you have chosen to devote your efforts to stirring disputes in restraint of collaboration, making unreasonable demands in questionable faith on the time of your fellow volunteers, and grandstanding and tilting at windmills of minutia without evincing a serious interest in the productive creation of content. Serious discussion is one way to contribute to quality articles, but frivolously disputatious bickering is not. Your top-edited articles and talkpages include not a single page that would not serve as a forum for argument for its own sake. Spreading every sliver of contention across as many project pages as will feed the flames of drama shows an unseemly disinclination to contribute to a free high quality encyclopedia, or even let other people get on with building it. I even spent my own social capital in your defense here, but the promised reforms have not materialized.

You usually maintain at least a veneer of courtesy, but far too often you make comments that are snide, sarcastic, condescending, or similarly only superficially polite. The term civility is often hyperlinked to Misplaced Pages:Civility, but it is really not being used as a term of art with some byzantine Misplaced Pages-specific definition unrelated to the societal norm of treating people with basic respect even in the face of serious disagreement. Accusations of collusion, insinuations of bad faith negotiation, and intimidation by intimation are never civil.

There follows a sampling of problematic diffs from the preceding week. Many of these are in context of discussions where other editors are also behaving disruptively, but the behaviour of others is immaterial to this sanction. It is worth noting that your participation in a discussion rarely has the effect of calming an inflamed situation or restoring a productive focus, though it often has rather the opposite effect. Some of my comments below include reference to guidelines or essays rather than policy; this should be taken as shorthand for the points laid out at those pages, not as indication that they are being used to justify this block.

1. accusation of gross misconduct outside of a dispute resolution process
2. accusation of perfidy
3. needlessly inflaming an already passionate discussion
4. sarcasm and accusation of bad faith
5. violation of WP:POINT
6. accusation of partiality and collusion
7. accusation of abuse and bad faith (diff includes edits by other editors to include the mitigating factor that you later struck part of a comment)
8. inflaming an already passionate discussion
9. unproductive sarcasm
10. uncivil insinuation
11. violation of WP:POINT and unevidenced accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter.
12. demand that other users expend their time and effort to your satisfaction
13. referring to people as "my good friend" is actually a bit annoying; this is just my personal opinion, not part of the blocking rationale, especially given your explanation here
14. incivility
15. Here you state at 01:17 on the 13th server time that you had dropped the matter of Pcarbonn's topic ban after a neutral administrator closed the discussion. Here an hour earlier is your back-handed acceptance of the clear community consensus. Here at 20:49 on the 12th, however, is another close by an uninvolved administrator, followed by, well, some of the diffs above ... then the close you acknowledged ... then another half dozen edits here. Really, choosing to insert yourself into that discussion at all given your recent block and sanction was particularly ill-advised. Other editors are capable of raising questions of due process (as, indeed, they did).
16. snide incivility
17. accusation of bad faith
18. includes: placing an unreasonable burden of evidence (very few people state that they are here to advance a personal agenda, it must be inferred from their edits); accusations of bad faith (saying AGF is not a shield to then proceed to fail to any more than stating "with all due respect" is a free pass to insult someone); and condescension.
19. accusation that other editors have failed to show due diligence in reviewing a serious matter
20. failure to show due diligence. You could easily have contributed productively here by adding the omitted log entry yourself.

For this wanton disrespect for the time and efforts of others, lack of basic consideration for the norms of constructive discussion, unacceptable focus on using this website as a forum for unduly burdensome and unproductive discussion at the expense of improving content, and following discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#GoRight, I am blocking your access indefinitely. Thank you for your contributions.

Administrators: Please discuss this block with me before modifying or lifting it unless there is a substantial community consensus or the action is otherwise obvious or non-controversial. I prefer open review, but my email is enabled if you would prefer to discuss off site. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to continue working with you here to try to hash out a set of restrictions that would not lead to another block on the same issues. I will check back here daily for your updates, but do please feel free to request that someone drop me a line on my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let me see if I can get it right this time.

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=After nearly a week of introspection and discussion I would like to offer a sincere apology to the community for my behavior which has led to this block. With regards to that behavior I pledge to make use of all noticeboards in a judicious and constructive manner and only for matters of serious import. I further pledge that when I do make use of such venues that I shall endeavor to be as succinct as possible and not to belabor any points beyond the point of futility. If I have supporting information relevant to any notice board comments I shall keep that material in my own user space or some other venue which has been specifically designated for the purpose of gathering supporting evidence. With regards to my behavior in article and talk space I pledge to place far more focus on finding collaborative resolutions to disputes and shall endeavor to reduce and hopefully eliminate any actions which may serve to increase the level of divisiveness which is already far too prevalent in the current climate change environment. As a safeguard against future problems in these areas I pledge to swiftly and appropriately address any behavioral problems once they have been brought to my attention amicably and in a genuine spirit of cooperation. If I fail to abide by this pledge, as judged by uninvolved administrators, I shall willingly accept the imposition of blocks by those same administrators with a duration set appropriate to the transgression. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Please hold on, I've contacted the blocking admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Update, the blocking admin is reviewing this. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well made pledges ... I wish you the best in keeping them. Writing is easier than practice. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, my community has over 30 monastics and many others with various levels of vows. There is at least an annual renewal and other opportunities for confession, repair, healing and forgiving inevitable infractions. What seems to be most important is staying on the right path even as falling astray occurs. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the terms under which you will allow me to continue editing?

2/0, this seems to be the first order of business if I am to be allowed to continue at all. So please do me the courtesy of a reply. --GoRight (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This remains an evolving situation as evidenced by the history of this page, so let me just list the main points and we can discuss them together in this section or severally in subsections, whatever makes the most sense.

1. Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive.
2. Topic ban from climate change related articles for six months. This is not the maximum allowed under the community probation, but rather the minimum I see as likely to be useful to the project. I am sensitive to the concerns of systematic bias you raise in your most recent email, but this does not extend to a tolerance for disruption.
3. Some form of ban from all disputes and noticeboard threads in which you are not a named party or otherwise clearly and directly involved, with the possible the exceptions of ArbCom and RFC/U. This is also easily open to conflicting interpretations, and I would want additional input before settling on clear wording that carries the same meaning both to the two of us and to people unfamiliar with the background to the restriction. I also consider it important not to restrict legitimate pursuit of dispute resolution.

Such issues have been raised here time and time again. I appreciate the wording of your current unblock request, but I think it is time and past time for clear editing restrictions rather than pretty generalities if you are to continue contributing here. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your skepticism regarding my pledges at this point and freely acknowledge that it is my own fault for finding myself in this current predicament. I wish to put this matter behind me as cleanly and with as little fuss and additional discussion as possible at this point. I would also like a chance to redeem myself on my own recognizance now that you have truly driven the point home.

To those ends, might you be convinced to allow me to proceed on my pledges alone if I further offer that for a period of 1 year I shall not object if you reinstate the existing block and return us to this point should you ever feel that I am not honoring these pledges in good faith for any reason? --GoRight (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be allowed to edit via a mentoring agreement. Then the above restrictions could be relaxed somewhat. If you want to edit a climate change related page or contribute to an AN/I thread, you notify your appointed mentor . You discuss with the mentor what you want to do there and then the mentor can either approve or disapprove. In case the mentor approves he/she can still impose some restrictions, e.g. asking you to change the way you want to put forward your argument there. Count Iblis (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely like the tone of your latest unblock statement, but I fear I must decline. These and similar issues have been raised here quite a number of times, and I would like any unblock to be informed by that history. I am sorry, but I believe that well-defined conditions as free as possible from the potential for differing subjective opinions are required if you are to continue contributing productively. I sincerely hope that this will be the last time you are blocked, and that the issues other people have had in editing with you may be resolved. - 2over0 public (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I understand and I bear you no ill will because of this. I was just trying to minimize any further drama and disruption. Given this, what are you seeking from me? You seem to want to have a conversation, which I welcome, but I am not clear on what exactly the purpose is at this point.

For example, is it acceptable for me to query you about the details of the evidence and the reasoning that drove you to your conclusions so that I and others might better understand where you are coming from? Such a back and forth discussion without fifty intermixed yelling voices might help others in the community to learn from my bad example, no? And depending on where such a conversation takes us perhaps you might reconsider your position?

I am asking because I don't wish to offend by starting off asking lots of questions which might make me appear defensive which is not my intent. My intent is to ensure that we (and everyone else who is watching) have a common understanding of the underlying issues and to help me feel as though you considered all of the relevant nuances before coming to your conclusion. It is also my hope that such a slow and deliberative exchange would be a tangible step towards fostering the collaborative environment we are both seeking by serving as a model for how to conduct civil interactions.

I am particularly interested in your personal perspective since it is you who has decided to take this action against me, so to that end I would ask that others refrain from interjecting comments into this section. If they want to comment they can do so elsewhere. Would you be open to such a discussion before we move on to the task of coming to a mutual agreement on the wording for specific restrictions? --GoRight (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of the issues raised by your case apply also to several other editors who have commented at this page, so I would be willing to work this out in some more detail than my original blocking statement. I have no problem with you pinging me by email or raising issues there that you would prefer to deal with in private, but for the most part I would prefer to keep this conversation here.

In many instances you were contributing to an already extant atmosphere of incivility, bad faith, and mutual antagonism. Taken individually, this can be an extenuating circumstance, but when it becomes a pattern something needs to change. The history of your block log, warnings left here, and your contributions over the few weeks preceding this latest block served to establish that pattern.

So, ask away. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, excellent. So allow me to proceed in a deliberative manner so that we may properly explore and discuss the various facets of the problem in due course. To that end let me consider each of your areas of concern, in turn, beginning with your main concern. I shall endeavor to utilize section headings to help scope the discussion as we proceed and to facilitate the editing process. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

"Some form of civility parole, as I view this as the main issue - antagonizing other editors is just not on, even in a toxic editing atmosphere. As I mention above, I do not think that these sorts of provisions have a stellar track record, so the wording here will need to be very clear to avoid frivolous reports of violation while still having teeth that an unfamiliar admin would feel comfortable invoking. I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above, but if you are willing to give it a go there is some chance that this condition could be productive."

Fundamental Principles

"In many instances you were contributing to an already extant atmosphere of incivility, bad faith, and mutual antagonism. Taken individually, this can be an extenuating circumstance, but when it becomes a pattern something needs to change."

OK, this seems a fine a proper statement and one which can be used to guide this discussion a bit as we proceed. I would first like to make sure that we are aligned on some of the fundamental principles at play here so that we are operating from the same perspective.

I assert that the following principles are self-evident in this context and that they reflect existing community practice:

1. All wikipedia editors are equal peers and as a result the application of sanctions or editing restrictions should be unbiased, fairly applied, and weighted in accordance with the severity of the infraction.

   In this context unbiased means without regard to an editor's points of view or who their political allies may be. Weighted in accordance with the severity of the infraction means that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak, and that cruel or unusual punishments (actually preventative measures) are to be avoided. Fairly applied means that similar weighted infractions receive similarly weighted sanctions or restrictions.

2. All wikipedia editors should be judged by and held to the same standard of conduct as represented by demonstrably accepted community standards and norms as exemplified by editors with well established editing histories and who enjoy visible support from not only the community at large, but from within the administrative community as well.

   While I believe that 2/0 and I share a common vision of what an ideal collaborative editing environment should be, the reality is that wikipedia falls short of such an ideal. As a result the proper standard of behavior to which someone such as myself should be held is not the ideal, but rather demonstrably accepted community standards and norms as exemplified by editors with well established editing histories and who enjoy visible support from not only the community at large, but from within the administrative community as well. This means that in order to determine whether someone such as myself has crossed a line in terms of civility, as well as how far beyond that line something lies, that the line in question is demonstrably accepted community standards and norms.

Do you agree? If not, please explain. Also, we may have to expand this list, as needed, depending on the direction that this conversation takes. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read this several times, but I am still not sure where you are going with it. We are all volunteers here, and need to treat each other with respect and decorum even, or perhaps especially, when we disagree. Fundamentally, we are here to build an encyclopedia, and everything else is secondary to that goal. Neutrality of enforcement aids in that goal because people generally prefer to work in a collegial environment with clearly established standards of behaviour. To a certain extent, WP:Civility is self-enforcing, as people will tend to ignore people who habitually violate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

"I have read this several times, but I am still not sure where you are going with it." - My purpose should be plain enough. We both seek to foster a collegial environment based on mutual understanding and respect. To do that we must clearly understand and agree on what that means. In your opening statement on civility you stated: "I am not at all convinced that you understand my reasoning behind each of the diffs above..." I understand your concern, and to some level may even agree with it, and so it would seem that we are not yet at the level of a mutual understanding. So my purpose here is to clearly convey what my understanding is and then to simply ask you if you agree, or not, with the intent to clearly delineate where we are in agreement (i.e. we have common ground) and where we are not (i.e. to identify the potential sources of our disagreement). Since I have no reason to believe that we are particularly unique in this environment I also contend that there is benefit to the overall community in holding such a discussion so that we can lay the groundwork for a more lasting solution to the problems that plague the climate change pages.

So, from that perspective, do you agree that the principles I have identified are representative of commonly expressed community standards, norms, and practices, or not? I should think that these are entirely uncontroversial, but if you are reluctant to agree with these principles I should think that we had better tease out why as this is likely part of the underlying disagreement between the two of us, and more importantly this may also point to part of the underlying problems within the larger community. We should always be mindful of the larger picture, no? --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you start arguing against full civil rights for Turing-compliant artificial sentiences, I really could not care less about your PoV. It matters when tendentious editing crosses the line into disruptive editing, but is otherwise immaterial for the probation and for administrator actions in general. I especially do not want to get into a situation where neutral enforcement (people who are disruptive in much the same way receive much the same treatment) into so-called balanced enforcement (if you ban one from that side, you must also ban one from the other). That way lies madness. I promised in my RfA that I would strive to use these buttons in the service of the community, not at the direction of any non-neutral party. The local behavioural norms in climate change are part of the reason that the probation was established. While some people have taken the hint (thank you to any of you reading this), the editing environment as a whole is still a long way from acceptable. As a volunteer project, there is unfortunately a vast divide between what the community would prefer and how far it is willing to go in enforcing that desire. Most people would rather spend their hobby-time more pleasantly, which leads to a knock-on effect as more of the more reasonable editors drift away, selecting for the most passionate and entrenched. This loss of ideas and bimodalization of the distribution is a good part of why I care enough to add my voice to encouraging the editors in the topic area to bring themselves more in line with the ideals of the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your phrasing in the above statement makes it difficult to parse and so it is difficult to accurately and confidently discern your meaning. If I understand this statement correctly I believe that you are arguing that neutral enforcement is the proper standard of application and that balanced enforcement should be rejected. Is this a correct interpretation of your position? If not, please clarify.

Assuming that this interpretation is correct we are in complete agreement that neutrality of enforcement is the order of the day, where this basically means "people who are disruptive in much the same way receive much the same treatment". I believe that the principles I expressed above constitute the very essence of neutral enforcement.

I would argue that my own behavior is basically on par with the current community norms as exemplified by editors with long established editing records, who have demonstrated a familiarity with the applicable policies, and who not only have visible support from within the community at large but from within the administrative community as well. To establish this fact I offer up three timely exemplars of such editors: User:William M. Connolley, User:Tony Sidaway, and User:Enric Naval. I contend that these three editors have all engaged in behavior which is basically on par with my own, that they have a demonstrable pattern of engaging in that behavior, and that their behavior is considered to be within acceptable community standards. So, unless a credible argument can be made for how my behavior far exceeds that of these editors my behavior too should be viewed as being within acceptable community standards and under a standard of neutral enforcement I should only be given sanctions on par with those imposed on these editors, if any.

On the charge of civility violations, there have been many recent discussions at climate change enforcement regarding the behavior of User:William M. Connolley. In several of those cases you, yourself, closed the requests with no action. In one such request you restricted him from editing others comments. I submit that this demonstrates that the behavior of this editor lies within accepted community norms, so unless my own behavior lies far in excess of that demonstrated by WMC in those requests the principle of neutral enforcement would require you to impose on me a set of sanctions of comparable severity. I argue that there is a vast difference between how you have treated me and how you have treated WMC. In my case you have unilaterally imposed a full on community ban against me (which is exactly what an indefinite block is when the general sanctions forbid other administrators from over-riding your decision and unblocking me without your permission). In the case of WMC you have required him to refrain from editing people's comments for 6 months. So, under the banner of neutral enforcement, either indefinitely block WMC for his civility violations as documented at the climate change enforcement requests OR impose a comparable sanction on me and unblock me.

On the charge of disrupting banning discussions and other important community discussions as AN, ANI, or similar venues I assert that both User:Tony Sidaway and User:Enric Naval have been equally disruptive at these venues as anything that I have done. Both continually insert their own comments throughout the entire discussion in an attempt to, as some would say, overwhelm the opinions of others. I believe that this is the substance of the charges against me. In addition TS makes a habit of editing the comments of others without their permission and in the recent discussion of my current block he managed to edit the comments of almost every poster in that discussion. I would argue that this act far exceeds anything I have done. Neither of these editors has received any sanctions whatsoever for their behavior, nor have they even received any warnings, so I argue that these facts are prima facie evidence that their behavior lies within accepted community norms. So, unless my behavior and level of purported disruption far exceeds that of these two editors the principle of neutral enforcement would require that I receive comparable sanctions to theirs. So, under the banner of neutral enforcement, either indefinitely block TS and EN for their disruption of community discussions (diffs available upon request) OR impose a comparable sanction on me (i.e. none) and unblock me.

If you believe that my own behavior far exceeds the behavior of these exemplars of accepted community behavioral norms, please provide a suitably detailed explanation of precisely how my behavior exceeds theirs along with supporting evidence. Barring such a demonstration of the justification for your actions, kindly undo them and let me be. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. and just to head off the inevitable mischaracterization of this argument that will inevitably ensue (from people other than 2/0 I would assume), this is NOT, I repeat NOT, an argument that bad behavior on the part of others somehow justifies bad behavior by me. It is an argument that says comparable behavior is treated comparably in accordance with neutral enforcement, and that if their behavior is considered acceptable by community norms so should mine be. --GoRight (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please tell 2/0 that I am waiting for a response?

Could someone kindly give him another nudge on his talk page? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Done mate mark nutley (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that 2over0 has an email account. It's not necessary to recruit other editors to inform him that you've made new posts; you can do it directly yourself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would direct TOAT to wherein 2/0 specifically states "please feel free to request that someone drop me a line on my talkpage". While I have made use of his email already he has indicated a preference to conduct things on-wiki. It is also worth noting that if he would simply unblock me there would not be a need to do either. --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been active today, so I think it is fair to say he has seen the notice. If he doesn't respond to that, I wouldn't think an e-mail would work. (Have to say though, admins should be more on top of this sort of thing. If you make the block, you better be ready to deal with the follow-up) Arkon (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"If he doesn't respond to that, I wouldn't think an e-mail would work." - Indeed. --GoRight (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What's the hurry? We're all volunteers here. Nobody is forced to review the minute you ask. We have some outstanding unblock requests from December. Patience is bit of a virtue - perhaps he's truly contemplating it from all the possible angles? I bet if you rush him into a decision, it will be "no"...being in a hurry does not help your case. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"We have some outstanding unblock requests from December." - I am unclear on your meaning here. Could you please clarify? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been very patient and will continue to do so. My comment is more an observation than a complaint. People can draw their own conclusions on whether it suggests anything, or not. As long as I am blocked and prevented from doing anything more useful, I might as well take this time to reflect as he requested and also to share my insights. This would seem the positive course of action in my circumstances, no? And one which may have a positive impact on the current climate change article crisis which necessitated the imposition of this probation. --GoRight (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be easier if you gave your word that if unblocked you would only post on 2/0 talk page until such a time as this is resolved? mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I had previously requested a conditional unblock similar to what you suggest which was ignored and 2/0 appears disinclined to take me at my word since he has rejected my good faith pledges even after I offered him complete and unilateral oversight for a full year. Given these rejections I am disinclined to offer him another cheek as it were. --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion, I think it might be best to take up your unblock with another admin at this point. 2/0 has not been responsive to this, or other requests concerning his enforcement actions. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A question for Mackan79

Re: . What is your opinion about 2/0's treatment of myself vs. that of WMC? Do you think he is being even handed based on everything you have seen over the past couple of weeks?

If so please help me to understand what it was about my own behavior that justifies this obvious disparity in the level of treatment over civility which 2/0 indicates was his main issue with me. Perhaps you can shed some light on the current impasse. --GoRight (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please post a notice on Mackan79's talk page for me regarding this question? --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Done mate --mark nutley (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi GoRight, just saw this. I'm not sure I'm ready to answer that, actually. My first thought is that you should probably work at getting unblocked rather than engaging other issues. I was looking at this last night, and wondering if you might not be shooting yourself in the foot by broadening things too far. That's a quick thought, if you'll pardon me for not going into more detail at the moment.... Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The question posed by GoRight looks good to me. With neutral enforcement I'd not be finding myself stating "comment on content not on the editor" more and more often (and then being completely ignored). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock