Trusilver

You wrote, "removed one old report, list NOT clear."^[1] Can you expand on this please. I believe I was very clear. Thanks. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Commented on your talk page. I suggest you read the header on WP:AIV. Trusilver 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You clearly have not investigated thoroughly. My concern is in regards to him deleting information and later updating unflattering image; two topics that have been discussed since the 11 of December, most recently since the 9th of January. He has not replied to my comments/questions on the deletion of information in the talk page[1]. You should really go to the page and read the events dating back to the 9th of this month. He made continual removals of valid information without justification or acknolwedgment. Posting decision on vandelism is a serious job and you should not take it lightly. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Sky (talk • contribs)

There are no threats. If you see any legitimate threats, please let me know by copying and pasting them on my talkpage. Otherwise, please do not make slanderous comments against me when I have made sincere efforts to follow the WP civility rules and acted in good faith. I reiterate, I took the time to read WP rules on civility, good faith, deletion of contect, vandelism, etc. and believe I am acting fairly.

Pristino uses tactics of dodging dialgue and soon playing the victim. If you read all of my posts and consider the timeline, you will see that when all is in context, I have been absolutely diplomatic, even in the face of being continually deleted by him. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will do that next time he dodges diaolgue. I also wanted to add this link to the one you posted on my page so that it will be in abslute context. [[1]] Thanks for taking the time and for the advise. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting that. Incidentally, your user page makes for interesting, and painfully true reading. You should nominate it for 'featured page status': people won't be buying a pig in a poke then when they consider getting involved with wikipedia, so to speak. Cheers Fortnum (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

hah! Thanks :) Trusilver 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am new to Wiki; as I'm sure you noticed. I just read your user page and found myself completely relating to your daughter. My third day using Wiki, I stepped into a big pile of Wiki politics and almost didn't come back. I asked an admin for "mentoring" only to receive an adament denial that any politics take place here. I chuckled and looked the other way. At that point, I decided to keep to myself and as in life, choose my battles carefully. Life is complicated enough, but moreso, I didn't want to divert from what attracted me Wiki: the just plain enjoyment I get from researching, writing and editing. I contemplated the life of the admin, and it takes a special personality to do just that, administer (mental image of a desk and an ankle cuffs). Admins are important. Yes, some, just as in the real world, abuse power. Just like some "authors" are idiots. I have decided to stick around for the love of the creativity. That said, I'm glad there are personalities out there willing to do the admin work.

Moreso than sharing this with you, I was itching to get it out there somehow. To say, "Yes, there are politics in Wiki. Hell yes." Sorry to your page for being the stage, thank you to your page for being the stage... if that makes sense. Now, closure. Moving on. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

/laughs/ Yes. Anyone who suggests that Wikipedia is not governed by its own internal politicking is either naive or a liar. The best administrators are the ones that curse the day they got the extra buttons, the worst are the ones that see their power as a medal of honor. I don't always succeed, but I try hard to be the former. I do try to tell every new person with a problem to stick it out, the problem children of wikipedia are a veryvocal minority, but they ARE a minority. There are far more excellent editors here than there are drama-makers and wannabe politicians. Trusilver 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver, thanks for your contribution on Avatar. Following some editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. User:LustyRoars continues to make disruptive edits. Isn't it time for a block? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've reviewed this editor's contributions, and he does occasionally make substantive edits. Because of this, I'm not going to block them outright as a vandalism-only account. They have made no further edits after the last warning, so I'm just going to add the user to my watchlist and se what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Trusilver! I noticed the reverts being made on the Ikonboard page on the recent changes page, and I looked up the Ikonboard website. Apparently, the publisher is listed as "Geek Layer Web Services Inc". It can be found here at the bottom of the page.

Thanks!

L337*P4wn 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've been reading up on it for the last five minutes. Thanks for letting me know :) Trusilver 04:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem! :) L337*P4wn 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the user you banned for the various editing of the Ikonboard article is back using another IP. At a glance this IP has been used in the past for editing/blanking its talk page. Brollachan (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I've noticed that. I have him on my watchlist for WP:COI issues. I'm going to wait a while and see what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Howdy Trusilver, hope you're well. :) This IP is requesting an unblock, and as you're the blocking admin, I'm giving you a heads-up. Thanks! GlassCobra 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey GC :) I just came across your name earlier today and was meaning to stop by your talk page and say hello. Hope you are doing good :) Trusilver 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for becoming involved in GoRight's unblock. I have no comment on the conditions; however, the I believe the indefinite nature of this block has gone on too long. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh sorry, I didn't even notice this comment until looking back over the one beneath it. Thank you, I would (of course) like to see GoRight reach a point where he is more constructive in his edits. I feel the same was as you do, though. I have watched this whole thing unfolding and have become increasingly concerned at how long it has been stretching out, I came to the conclusion that a little nudge from an uninvolved party was the only thing that would make it move forward. Trusilver 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

While I admire the courage it takes to wade into GoRight's talk page, I'm concerned that the unblock conditions you have proposed do not directly address the concerns raised by 2over0 (or by Viridae, who also indefinitely blocked GoRight in January). In the list of problematic diffs offered by 2over0 (User talk:GoRight#Blocked (2)), none comes from article space. Most are on talk and – especially – Wikipedia-space pages. Particularly problematic are the cases where GoRight inserts himself into disputes involving other editors.

I'm going to openly acknowledge the elephant in the room — if GoRight's ability to involve himself in others' disputes remains, he will spend the bulk of his on-wiki time picking fights with WMC, Enric Naval, Tony Sidaway, and a few others with whom he has had historical and/or ongoing difficulties. He sees himself as a crusader (and now martyr) for the 'rights' of a downtrodden minority, with all the benefits and pitfalls such an attitude entails. His talk page comments recently have essentially acknowledged that point. (Here, self-drawn parallel to Rosa Parks(!) here are a couple of samples.)

Leaving him free to argue and insult on talk pages, and to involve himself into others' disputes (as long as he maintains a veneer of civility) pretty much takes us back to where we started. The fact that he wore down 2over0's incredible patience with endless argument and refusal to just get the point is telling — as is the fact that no other administrator wanted to get involved with the three separate {unblock} requests that he's had up on his talk page since 2over0 blocked him originally (links on request; he's had {unblock} templates up for a total of more than two weeks with no takers). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have done a pretty extensive review of GoRight's edits and talk page over the last year, I have a pretty clear picture of the issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is a viable middle ground. As far as I'm concerned, this is a last chance. I won't hesistate to block him again if he doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, but at the same time, neither do I find unnecessary baiting or using his editing restrictions as a weapon against him to be acceptable. We will see how things go. Trusilver 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is no harm in a civil attempts to "crusade". However, GoRight should be cautioned to stay focused on productive content outcomes in both a "crusade" and articles themselves. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree completely. Trusilver 18:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I also think the unblock conditions miss the point; if anything allowing him to edit the articles and be banned from the talk pages would make more sense, bau that is not possible. Sole Soul (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. And besides, as I pointed out elsewhere, there will not likely be any more chances if he fails to adhere to these restrictions. I worded it the way I did because my first concern is always for the encyclopedia itself, the associated talk pages are always secondary to that. The bad part about topic bans is that they rarely change anything unless they are indefinite, they certainly don't change the attitude of the person being topic banned. They only way there will be a permanent solution to this issue is if GoRight changes the way he does business with other people, or if he's banned. Let's try the first one more time before moving on to the second. Trusilver 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would be remiss were I not to note that the 'public' face of Wikipedia depends on the successful, collegial functioning of all those pages behind the scenes. Without functioning talk pages, and without editors who can work together (at least in some way, on some level), we can't build that high-quality encyclopedia that we want to deliver. No single editor is indispensable to any one article or to any one topic — but one editor can make a topic area utterly miserable, and can erode the participation, contributions, and benefits of others through attrition. GoRight has been blocked multiple times for a pattern of disruptive behaviour; as administrators we are expected to strike a balance between the chance of 'rehabilitating' individual editors and letting the rest of Wikipedia function effectively.

All that said, a suitable limitation on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution – limiting him to his own disputes only, instead of those of others – shouldn't harm our articles. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is appropriate, I believe it would be in the best interests of the project (and of GoRight, though I suspect he might disagree with me) to encourage him to focus only on his own fights right now, and not those of other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yet more quibbling for you. I'd like For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is covered under the climate change article probation. clarified. My assumption is that "covered" means "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed)" per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation; it doesn't mean just pages tagged with the {{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|[[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation]] for full information and to review the decision}} header. Is that correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yeah. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I meant any article that falls under the Climate change probation. I will change that on GoRight's talk page. Trusilver 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking an interest in this. I am sorry for all the verbiage you had to way through to review the situation since the block. I think that GoRight genuinely understands the goal of the project, and genuinely wants to help in achieving creation of a free and respected encyclopedia. I do not think that I have successfully communicated why their contributions have not been furthering that goal. I think that your proposed conditions miss some of their disruptive behaviour, but I am grateful for your pledge to follow their edits. If I may, I would like a day to consider. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. And I agree that there is some of the behavior that isn't being addressed, but I also feel that if we want to rehabilitate (I hate that word, but I can't think of another right now) this user, we need to meet at neutral ground and give them the ability to modify their own behavior, rather than restrict every aspect of it. Do I think it's going to work? Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, I think that it's important to give them one last chance before a final community ban. But don't feel pressured either way, the good part about being uninvolved is that I have no problem with saying "screw it" if you think this is a bad idea. Trusilver 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver, rather than "rehabilitate" I suggest reading Restorative justice. In my opinion Wikipedia is ideal for this because no one owns anything and it can be changed. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

2/0, forgive me if I find this all a bit humorous, but nothing GR did was worse than what WMC and others have been doing for years, yet here we are, 3 weeks later, and you are still sitting on this block. Now another admin comes along and offers to assume responsibility, and you're asking for more time for "consideration"? While you are stalling "considering", perhaps you can also consider why you're approach to GR is so much more drastic than your approach to other aggressive editors. Why is "civil POV pushing" sanctionable while "uncivil, conescending POV pushing" is excused? I've politely posed these questions on your talk that you've yet to answer.

In any case, it's been 3 weeks now -- it's time to quit the stalling on GR's situation and let someone else handle it. ATren (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say thanks Trusilver! I've been trying to work out how to give 168.8.212.133 a warning about vandalism, but youi've already blocked them from editing! Thank you! Regards Orionsbelter (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Heh, no problem :) Trusilver 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't mean to quibble and I won't press the issue, but I believe that you have altered the terms of the topic ban from what I had actually agreed to. Please review the language that I actually agreed to and if you feel a mistake has been made take whatever corrective action you feel is appropriate.

The language in question as I agreed to it was:

"For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is related to the climate change article probation. The user may participate on the talk pages during this time provided they adhere to the civility probation above and are conscious to avoid disruption. Failure to comply with this will result in a warning then a full topic ban for the remainder of the three months as issued by an uninvolved admin."

If you feel the language you have recorded is more appropriate and feel it is important that the restriction be so modified I will still accept it but obviously I would prefer the original language.

--GoRight (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and of course modifying the language to accommodate WMC's concern over the scope is fine. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I just got home and I'm exhausted. I will get back to you on this tomorrow. Trusilver 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

NP, take your time. I just want to get things settled during this i dotting and t crossing period. --GoRight (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've given it some thought, and I don't feel that there is a significant change in the language, only an amplification of what has already been covered. I added "broadly construed" more for you, so there is no misunderstanding about the idea that all climate change related articles are in the danger zone. Trusilver 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, so we are agreed per the language which has been recorded at WP:RESTRICT and subsequently posted on my talk page. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I'll do my best not to squander this last chance or to betray the good faith that has been placed in me by all those involved and Viridae before them. --GoRight (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is goright allowed to work on or comment on a wip which will likely fall under the CC probation once it goes into mainspace? I was hoping to get his input but am worried that his unblock conditions prevent him from working on a work in progress? [2] Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

A work in your own sandbox is just that. Seeing that it's not an article yet, there's no reason to expect any contention. Once it is moved to mainspace, that's a different story. I don't see any problem with it right now, though. Trusilver 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That`s great thank you --mark nutley (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Looks like your cleanup effort on the Viking Age went awry. I reverted to the version I think you were aiming for. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you for catching that. :) Trusilver 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

That was well done. I don't expect to be interacting with him at all for quite a while, and I'm even going to avoid looking at his edits for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

IMO, Atama's closing of the complaint as not requiring admin intervention to supersedes yours. A user engaged in a dispute at a policy page cannot be allowed to trawl through an opponent's edit history and cherry-pick the perceived juiciest bits. If you feel differently, then by all means re-open and seek wider community input, please. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Tarc, I really couldn't care less. But you may still consider yourself warned for civility. I don't give a damn about your dispute, I don't give a damn about problems anyone has with you, I don't give a damn about the articles you edit, I don't give a damn about a little incivility. (we all have bad days) I DO give a damn about blatant incivility and disruptiveness. 98% of the people on the project are fully capable of editing without being snarky, rude, nasty, etc. You go out of your way to push the envelope in that respect and I have no qualms whatsoever with blocking you if the situation requires.

Don't make the situation require it. (period/full stop) Trusilver 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

(P.S. To anyone lurking on my talk page; that was not an invitation to come to me with every perceived bit of incivility that Tarc, or anyone else, is committing. If it inadvertently comes to my attention, fine, but otherwise... use appropriate channels.) Trusilver 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well now, that was a bit rude, and not what I'd expect from someone entrusted with the admin bit. There has been no "blatant incivility and disruptiveness" on my part; a carefully-crafted laundry list presented by Mr. Barber does not a case make. Your page is now unwatched. Good day. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Now that you've had the last word, I'm sure you will sleep much better. Trusilver 04:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you want your User page protected? Woogee (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If I did, I would protect it. I intentionally leave it unprotected to serve as something of a honeypot. I prefer vandals to hit my page rather than legitimate articles. Thank you for the offer, though. And thanks for the revert on my userpage. Trusilver 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the block of that IP "71.100.31.227," although it's not the first one he(or she, if possible) has had. Have you actually seen this user's edit history? ----DanTD (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I saw that, which is why I blocked him for a week. We normally go on an escalating scale for blocks. My normal first block for a vandal is 31 hours, they get progressively longer from there. I would prefer more extreme measures, but they fail to achieve consensus. Trusilver 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Trusilver - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for blocking user 84.112.168.187. His obsession for toilet humor, among other forms of vandalism, are a nuisance for mature editors. His reaction makes me pessimistic, if his attitude will change after the 48 hour period. However, thanks. --Wikiwatchers (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

You never can tell, but the good thing about blocks is that they only take a couple clicks to reapply. :) Trusilver 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in relation to this, I am not confident that the block will have the required preventative effect if it is lifted. It appears from the history of his talk page that Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his friends believe him to be the target of a nefarious WP:CABAL, and continue to dispute both the validity and the necessity of the topic and namespace ban. Under these circumstances, I believe that lifting the block early would have the effect of making continued infringement (with the associated reports, blocks, drama and general timewasting) more likely. For this reason, I ask you not to lift the block. More generally, I believe that, in order for arbitration enforcement to be effective, administrators must be in a position to actually exercise the discretion given them by ArbCom, which is why it is a personal policy of me not to needlessly second-guess the enforcement actions of my fellow admins (see, for more detail, User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/February#Mooretwin). I'd appreciate it if my colleagues would extend the same courtesy to me. Regards,  Sandstein  07:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you don't think that the block will have a preventative effect if it is lifted, do you feel that it will have a preventative effect once it has expired? And if not, why did you only put it for a week, and why not seek a community ban? I ask because I generally group blocked users into two catergories: Those who are net positives and those who are net negatives, the former should be given every opportunity to reach a point where they can "play nice" with the rest of the community in a way that maximizes their content contributions and minimizes their disruptions. The latter should be shown the door at the first opportunity. Which one is Brews? I'm not really sure, but I think that there's enough of a reason to assume some good faith here. If I saw a clear intent to be disruptive I wouldn't have anything to say about it, but I don't see such an intent, at least not on this occasion. I also have to disagree on one point: I think it is our duty to second-guess the enforcement actions of other admins, because the second we stop reviewing each other's decision, then the cabal really does exist. If you feel strongly that the length and circumstances of this block are justified, then I will not intervene, but in this occasion, I think the punishment is needlessly punitive. Trusilver 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't be sure that the block will have a preventative effect once it has expired, of course, but it will almost certainly have less of a preventative effect if it is lifted, because lifting it may send the message that enough wikilawyering eventually pays off, and it may also weaken the authority of the arbitration process, which is intended to result in binding solutions.

I agree with the categorization you propose, and I also don't know which group of editors Brews ohare belongs to, being unfamiliar with his history, but I don't think it is relevant here: this is not a block for disruption. The edits of Brews ohare were not, in and of themselves, disruptive. But they were in violation of a ban, and therefore prohibited without regard to their merits, see WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. I applied a week-long block because that was the maximum block duration allowed under the relevant remedy. But in general, when faced with serial misconduct, I prefer to apply indefinite blocks, and then lift them as soon as the user credibly agrees not to misbehave again. I'd grant an unblock request of this sort at once, but instead all we get is denial and wikilawyering. Such conduct ought not to be rewarded.

I do too believe we ought to review each other's decisions, but we should observe proper deference to each other in doing so: I will undo another admin action only if it is indefensible and a clear violation of policy, but not in situations where reasonable people can disagree and I am simply holding a different opinion about how best to apply policy.

For these reasons, I continue to oppose any lifting of the block until we get an unblock request that follows the advice in WP:GAB.  Sandstein  09:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver, I have taken note of your unblock of Brews ohare. This unblock is not supported by clear, active and sustained community consensus, as required for any overturn of an arbitration enforcement action by the arbitration motion cited below. I ask you to reinstate the block with its original expiration date within six hours of receipt of this message (which I am also informing you of per e-mail). Should you not do so, I will request the Arbitration Committee to take the appropriate action. Thank you for your consideration,  Sandstein  17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) I think that for the best preventative effect, Brews should have been warned, and then blocked severely if he continued namespace violations. What that does is say "hey, I'm going to assume good faith and think that you made an honest mistake, so I'll give you a chance to be personally responsible and fix it." I think that it's clear that Brews didn't know that he was acting in violation of the ban, and now he's just upset about being blocked as opposed to being empowered to fix his mistake and continue positive contributions elsewhere. Awickert (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Very well said Awickert. I agree. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

And that was precisely why I felt this unblock was so necessary. And Sandstein, you do whatever will make your evening more enjoyable. Trusilver 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

In failing to comply with this motion, you've misused your administrative privilleges. Several reminders were made to this effect, but your failure to be receptive to these reminders suggests you are no longer fit to retain your position as an administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver did the right thing. Perhaps we should think about limiting the authority of Arbcom a bit. Arbcom is necessary, but the automaticity of blocks that cannot be appealed and the absense of a real appeals process for topic bans is not ok. Brews latest appeal failed. Why? Because you had only one or two Arbcom members who pragmatically looked at his case and proposed some good ideas. Another thing is that the appeals process is not an independent review at all, it is more like some request for probation where on the basis of good behavior and saying sorry, you can get the topic ban relaxed. Now, I'm not against a probation system like that, but then why call that the "appeals process"? Count Iblis (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

VCMvocalist, the sad fact of the matter is that ARBCOM in allowing mockeries like what happened to Brews to happen is a clear example of your own unfitness for the tools. When in the blue fuck will ARBCOM come off their high horse and be willing to assume good faith? They are there to stop the disruption, not implicitly allow and encourage petty harassment, in essense try and show brews the door. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for returning Brews to the trenches, Trusilver. Though the overturn may be against the letter of the law, it was in the spirit of it: the initial block was IMO overly punitive in a gray area, and all discussion (which was nearly unanimously against the decision to block Brews) was squashed. Ncmvocalist, I sugguest that you start spending more time writing articles. Then maybe you'd understand why it's helpful to WP:AGF and not block a major content contributor for a whole week over a namespace violation. I'm unhappy with the way this was handled and with the flak that Trusilver is getting for his actions. If there is action taken against Truesilver, I will support him. And if this silliness continues and it comes down to a battle between those who administer and those who actually write an encyclopedia in which those who do the writing lose out, I will strongly protest or leave the project, and someone will have to find another person to do geology/geophysics featured article reviews. Awickert (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Arbcom was never designed to stifle intellectual discourse on the thinnest of premises. It was also not meant as a springboard on which persecutorial reports on Arbitration Enforcement to be used against editors in order to settle scores. Your eloquent, lucid and precise rationale for lifting the block has a clarity of vision that few Arbcom written decisions in recent memory possess. I think you should run for Arbcom because your lucid judgment is needed there as well as your great ideas. Please do not let the inevitable whining detract you. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Moreover you combine lucidity of thought with the courage of your convictions which you realise into principled actions. Your rationales are also so well written and clearly enunciated that are easily understood. I only !vote here when I am inspired by the candidate. In the next Arbcom elections, if you are a candidate, I will vote for you. Thank you for inspiring me. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, and I appreciate the sentiment, but I would sooner gouge out my own eyes with an icepick than run for ARBCOM. I already have a full-time job, I don't need two of them. ARBCOM sits on a seesaw where they find themselves simultaneously making decisions on topics they should keep their noses out of, and being forced to create solutions to problems that rarely have good solutions. Those are both things that I just don't have the time and patience for. Trusilver 02:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your reply. I am really sorry to hear that you don't plan to run. There have been very few times when I was impressed with someone's ability to elucidate their thoughts so precisely and communicate with such eloquence the principles involved in their decision. But you communicated your reasons for your decision very clearly and I completely see your point, regretfully. I just hope, one day, you may reconsider. Take care. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another thing is that WP:IAR allows any Admin to violate the rule quoted by Ncmvocalist. The text of WP:IAR was never updated to restrict its application after that Arbcom decision to place itself above everything; it still says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.", it does not make any exceptions for any rules that Arbcom has made. Note that Arbcom cannot decide that WP:IAR doesn't apply to them, because WP:IAR itself would also apply to that very Arbcom decision. The only way would be to modify WP:IAR itself, which requires community consensus and that has not happened. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I would like to thank those that agree with what I did, the show of support knocks me out. I was in awe to find the wall of barnstars above when I got to an internet connection today. For those that disagree, I respect your point of view and opinion, even if I reject it. As I said before, I didn't make this decision lightly.

The chief problem does not lie with ARBCOM, and I definitely have my issues with ARBCOM to be sure, but this isn't one of them. The problem arises where administrators, by design or by negligence, use an ARBCOM sanction in a vague manner to deliver a block without having to answer to other policies that they find momentarily inconvenient. I have no comment on Brews prior behavior that led up to his topic ban, and I really, really couldn't care less. My one and only focus in this matter was on Sandstein's block, which was, by far, the most questionable block that I have seen in a good long time. Anyone from a dispassionate, neutral point of view can clearly see that the two edits that resulted in the block were made in good faith and without the slightest clue that they would result in a block. The very idea that the block was allowed to stand for as long as it did represents the single biggest problem that Wikipedia has today: The tyranny of a ruling aristocracy that justifies its actions by the letter of the law, while completely ignoring the spirit of the law. We joke about the big and scary admin cabal, but the truth is that the cabal really DOES exist- it exists because we allow it to exist. It exists because when we see an admin decision that was clearly wrong, we do nothing. I'm guilty of it too, for this one time that I did what I should of (and what many others should have) there have been countless others that I saw and did nothing about it because I didn't want to deal with the hassle.

Somewhere along the way, we have forgotten that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We should be striving at all times to foster an environment where people are welcomed, not an environment where people are bullied until they leave. I say again, I'm not commenting on any action Brews has taken other than those that resulted in this block, but under no circumstances should this block ever have been allowed to stand. It is a travesty when we allow ourselves to hide behind the labyrinthine set of rules and bureaucracies that govern the project at the expense of losing the ability to say "lets use common sense and do the right thing", this is the very essense of the fifth pillar. I actually feel embarrassed that this is only the second time I have invoked WP:IAR in the last three years, but I cannot think of a better reason to do it than to defend the core principles by which Wikipedia was built.

This is my first and last statement on the matter, I don't feel that anything else needs to be said. I'm sure that some will rant and complain about this, and others will come to my defense (and thank you to those of you that do), but I will not argue about this or defend my position further, all I need to say has been said, and I am not a fan of never-ending exercises in intellectual masturbation that this type of debate eventually deteriorates into. I prefer to simply agree to disagree. Good day to all of you. Trusilver 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver, an administrator was desysopped for taking an action very much like yours. Ncmvocalist correctly quotes the decision. I have no opinion at all whether Brews Ohare's block deserves to be overtuned, but it is not within the remit of any administrator to take that action. Please reverse your decision procedurally and assist him with an appeal. Durova⁴¹² 03:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Here I am, doing exactly what I said I wasn't going to do... commenting on this further, yet I want to clarify this point.

Durova. excuse my language, but I respect the absolute holy shit out of you, as an administrator and an all around level headed human being. If they feel the need to take my mop, then they can take my mop, but I won't reverse my decision, because it was the right thing to do. I can shrug and click the little "x" in the corner of my screen the moment I read they have desysopped me and walk away with a smile because when shown a case of injustice, I did the right thing rather than ignore it. A lot of people have lost their admin status for doing a lot of really stupid things over the years, but I would have nothing but a feeling of immense pride in being desysopped for upholding the spirit of the project, which is exactly what this is. They can open the Arbcom case on me tomorrow, my only statement will be what I have written above.

Thank you very much for your advice, I appreciate it. Trusilver 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would be better all around to seek the right outcome without staking your bit upon it. Please correct if this is mistaken, but it doesn't appear that an appeal to ArbCom has been tried. The ANI thread closed on a procedural basis because that was the wrong venue. So if there is a good case to be made then ArbCom would probably overturn the block. No reasonable person would hold the unblock against you if you reversed it promptly and went the normal route. Durova⁴¹² 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think Trusilver did the only human thing to do. Brews had a open request that went unanswered for 5 days. When asked the admin completely refused to discuss or even entertain the idea that the block might be frivolous or in error. How long would you wait to review a request. Whatever Brews faults when he went to arbcom he has done a shit ton to try and show these sanctions are no longer nec. What happens? Every possible minor thing he does is taken to arbcom. Brews is a expert, we ned more of them around. It would be like taking away your digital remastered photos, we would truly be at loss. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I cannot, in good conscience, reverse my decision. If I had it to do all over again, the only change I would make would be to have unblocked without spending a day second guessing myself. Thank you for your time Durova, I appreciate the advice, but I can't take it. Trusilver 03:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(ec, outdent) Brews Ohare's request was not unanswered; it was never submitted to the right venue. It was an arbitration-based block, not a community-based block. The community had no standing to review it. Four days ago here the closure note stated the proper venue. If Brews Ohare was somehow unaware that his request had been raised on ANI and closed with a referral to ArbCom, then that's all understandable. But that doesn't excuse the misuse of the tools. SlimVirgin was desysopped for doing what Trusilver has done. Let's handle this the sensible way, reinstate the block, and open a proper request onsite with ArbCom. Brews Ohare could email his appeal or anyone with editing privileges could initiate it onsite on his behalf. Durova⁴¹² 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Read your reply after the edit conflict. Do you understand that the venue referral was provided four days ago? Durova⁴¹² 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Echoing Durova here. Frankly, I think that the community should be able to review certain classes of ArbCom based blocks and that that would be a a reasonable check on bad ArbCom decisions. But neither the current community nor the ArbCom is in favor of that. Even if some form of such a procedure were acceptable, nothing like that has followed here. To ignore the ArbCom (whether or not one agrees with it) is to invite anarchy. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

An Arbcom ban should only be entered by a Arbcom member, unless it is a clear violation. At what point did Arbcom become the and only after a clear consensus is reached that it is indeed a violation. This was far from a clear cut violation. Have you reviewed the history on this case for the last three months almost every edit Brews has made has resulted in a arbcom enforcement hearing Most of the time it is proven to be a frivolous matter and dismissed. I'm very saddened with this part of Wikipedia, we coddle the new comers and treat good faith expert contributers like crap. I'm not even saying Sandstein was trying to abuse his powers, I am saying he may have got this one wrong....If this was a clear cut issue there wouldn't be several people including admin concerned with thus block. At that point it became about following a mindless procedure that didn't really apply in this case. If Trusilver reverses his action and brews serves the last 12 hours what point does this serve? What disruption are we looking to prevent? Blocks are to prevent disruption, show me how this disrupted the pedia? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hell in a Bucket, it would be a good idea to read up on the link Ncmvocalist provided. It specifically dealt with a case where ArbCom discretionary sanctions had been applied by a non-arbitrator. Heck, I'd like to reform ArbCom at least as much as everybody else on this page. But there's a proper way to reform things and Trusilver's action--however well intentioned--didn't help that. We can set things right. Let's go about this the right way. Durova⁴¹² 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to be a little sarcastic, but I'm sure this will be cleared up in 12 hours by Arbcom. His week long block was to expire tomorrow. How would this be improved other then a mindless revert to support a flawed image? Realizing that wiki isn't a court of law consider how mqany times our own court systems have ered and jailed people wrongfully? How long did it continue until someone said, Gee this isn't right. Why are we putting people in jail because of their religion or lifestyle? How do you suggest reforming when you support the process that lead down the wrong path?Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Trusilver, I invite you to read this. In November 2008, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except * with the written authorization of the Committee, or * following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. I ask that you look at this situation.. do you have either? SirFozzie (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

By reading Brews page and this page he does have community support, maybe had more people who objected came there or responded to the Ani thread I opened would have sseen consensus. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. The community support has manifested itself in spades here and in Brews's talkpage. Or are we to be ignored? The block rationale and length were flawed from the start. Trusilver's action corrected a gaping error, was based on high principles and was elucidated clearly and convincingly. The block would be naturally over by now anyway. There is no disruption occuring as we speak. There is no point to revisit the issue other than additional bureaucratic manoeuvering. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(undent) SirFozzie, there was an overwhelming consensus on Brews page that this was a bad block. I have to stick by my guns because this was a bad block. It would be like me blocking you right now for violating some random ARBCOM topic probation on an article you have never been to and then everyone telling you that you can't be unblocked because it was done under the guise of an ARBCOM (and it would just add to the hilarity if you actually particpiated it in) sanction. I unblocked because I roundly reject that this block ever fell under the umbrella of Brews topic ban, it never even came close. If I were to reverse my decision, it flies in the face of my belief that we MUST put common sense and working in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles ahead of bureaucratic nonsense and letting a gigabyte or so worth of policies do our thinking for us, something that I feel that Sandstein most definitely did. Administrators simply must not be able to use an Arbcom sanction as an end run around other wikipedia policies and the virtue of common sense. If I have to lose my bit to push the statement that we cannot and must not have a system where one administrator who takes ten minutes (and that's being pretty damn generous) reviewing a decision can arbitrarily bind everyone elses hands from reversing a bad and destructive decision, then I'm more than willing to do it. Looking at Sandstein's edit history, he arrived at his decision in only a handful of minutes, I arrived at mine after four days. This has already taken up too much of my time, I understand that you all are trying to keep me from running off the edge of a cliff, but I'm not blind, I really do see it. I'm sorry but I have other things to do tonight, I really have nothing else to add. Joshua, Durova, SirFozzie, thank you very much for your concern, it really does mean a lot to me. Trusilver 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Consensus doesn't form on an individual user's talk page. According to the consensus on my user talk page archives for the last two years, I should be an administrator again. Any bureaucrat who tried to act on that would get trouted right quick. ;) Durova⁴¹² 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nice try Durova. Except in Brews's case there was an active unblock request and that was the only discussion forum open at the time. I did not see an active RfA running on your talkpage. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 04:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe we call that Ignoratio elenchi Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)A community consensus does not form in the User or User talk namespaces. Period The End. It could have been formed at WP:AE or WP:AN(I), but not at User talk:Brews ohare. NW (Talk) 05:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Darn, Nuke. You posted just as the Big Black Book of Wiki Witchery was getting a new entry under "Evil Subplots": there goes User talk:Durova/Requests for adminship/Durova 2. Durova⁴¹² 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Goes back to the cauldron to taste the broth and add more newt eyes.Reply

You get my unqualified support! Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 05:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I hear that certain talk namespaces are still up for grabs though :) NW (Talk) 05:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You guys are charmers. Seriously, let's go ahead and file the appeal over somewhere at RFAR and get this done properly with smiles and handshakes. :) Durova⁴¹² 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Durova! Anytime you go for a second RfA count me in. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 05:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

With respect and handshakes, consider the last enforcement modification request. Right now Brews is the ant in the magnifying glass for many editors. And filing a appeal with 12 hours left on his block will do what? Nothing it will be like a posthomous pardon, nice, but ultimately worthless. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

I can see Durova's point and of course I would love to see this end with smiles, handshakes and no acrimony. It is a beautiful thought. I just can't visualise the dance steps for this yet. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 05:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Get the thing off Brews's record officially, and clear the air for Trusilver (one might ask why he bothered unblocking with so little time left). Durova⁴¹² 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not to be melodramatic but that is like telling someone exonarated for rape who's served 20 years of a 25 year sentence, well you were wronged but you've allready done 20 years why not finish out the last five? We'll clear your record after that but serve the five, it's good for you really. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Nobody said that the steps would be easy. That's the problem. Dr.K. ^λogos_πraxis 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Where would we begin to untangle the underlying evil in all of this? It begins of course with the original ARBCOM sanctions, but we will not debate that here. For the purposes of this debate we will focus on Headbomb's enforcement action. It was taken out in the midst of an edit war between Likebox and Headbomb. That edit war was clearly provoked by Headbomb, and it has since been proven that Headbomb's knowledge in the content area was lacking. Headbomb then set out to get Brews ohare, Likebox and myself blocked, and in doing so he abused administrative and ARBCOM tools. Sandstein quickly obliged on the basis of an extreme play on words. Sandstein then hides behind the ancient line "I was only doing my job". And that is where the evil lies. The evil lies in a system in which one administrative body can pass the buck to another administrative body, and where both branches of the administration can then hide behind each other.

At the AN/I thread I could see this problem, and I made calls for ARBCOM to come forth and adjudicate. I made these calls amidst a fusillade of threats that I myself would find myself in trouble if I wasn't careful.

And this is where it then gets very interesting indeed. An Arbitrator, SirFozzie, came forth, but rather than adjudicate, he decided to obfuscate and run. He made two statements on the issue. The first of those statements read in plain English that Brews was in the clear. The second statement was a riddle which left us all guessing, and then SirFozzie left the scene passing the buck to community consensus. Durova then archived the thread claiming that it had all been misfiled and that it was for ARBCOM to decide and not for community consensus.

'Misfiled' is of course a well known bureaucratic 'cop out' strategy. It was not misfiled at all. The one thing that Sir Fozzie did make quite clear was that discussions on the thread should continue. The two pronged buck passing tactic that took place between SirFozzie and Durova was a monumental disgrace, and it left the evil against Brews ohare intact.

Trusilver finally came forth and reversed that evil, and now he is about to be crucified. I say to Trusilver that you have spoken the truth and so have absolutely no fear whatsoever of the consequences. If wikipedia wants to show itself up, so be it. I would like to thank you very much for doing what you did, and I apologize to you for my premature expressions of disappointment when it appeared to me that you were dragging your heels. I now fully understand your position entirely.

And to SirFozzie I say "Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes that there was no consensus to remove the sanctions on Brews ohare". And to Durova I say "Spare us all the quotes from Ncmvocalist". ARBCOM would be spending their time better if they attempted to get to grips with this editor Ncmvocalist who holds absolutely no official position whatsoever but who constantly turns up at ARBCOM hearings and administrative threads muddying the waters and causing people damage. I can speak from personal experience on that point. David Tombe (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

David, from the many points you made I just wanted to note that, in my opinion, Durova has made very constructive and fair proposals during the ongoing Arbcom hearing. I haven't seen Durova's quote of Ncmvocalist but I know that she is not dogmatic. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dr. K, Yes, well I see that she has now agreed that her actions in closing the AN/I thread were premature. And she has redeemed herself by pointing out the gaping flaw in the system, which I have now formally identified as being the lack of a constitutional court, or judicial review procedure. Such is absolutely necessary when admins are making secondary legislation or secondary judgments on the back of primary ARBCOM actions. However, if we divided the powers and ended all this 'arbitration enforcement' business, then a constitutional court would not be necessary. David Tombe (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A significant share of the time at the wiki, things that most people refer to as drama are actually the result of structural flaws that are fixable. Too often, attention focuses upon the individual personalities involved. A very good habit to get into is to step back and ask whether a reasonable mechanism can prevent future problems. Durova⁴¹² 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I would only add that until the new mechanisms are developed and while we are still in a grey transitional area, that we don't treat people as examples and scapegoat them. That would be extreme and damaging to the project and obviously unbefitting of an AGF-based wiki-culture. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dr. K and Durova, I think that there is nothing more that anybody can do now until ARBCOM have voted on the issue of Trusilver. Everything now hinges on that vote, as it will point to the direction that wikipedia is now headed towards. Is wikipedia going to drift towards Javertism, or is it going to drift towards Cokism? Sir Edward Coke is famous for having drawn attention to the higher natural justice which sits above man made rules and regulations, and his writings have been influential in both the British and American constitutions. David Tombe (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sometime ago there was talk of reforming Arbcom, making it less bureaucratic, more flexible and more responsive. The model of Javert is not representative of flexibility, thus, if adopted it cannot be called reform but rather backsliding. Further this case is a litmus test of the responsiveness of the arbcom to the extenuating circumstances, to the community and to common sense. I hope that AE enforcement actions do not create a new type of uberadmin: The Arbcom AE enforcer whose actions, even Draconian, even unjust, can only be reviewed and changed by Arbcom itself and not by the college of his peers. Arbcom concentrating even more power in its hands is not reform. It is backsliding into an abyss or a banana pit. That of the college of Banana Republics. Arbcom should make decisions. These decisions should be upheld by admins and in special circumstances, overturned by admins. If by overturning a decision an admin's action is challenged, this should go back to the Arbcom for a final decision, without fear, without recrimination but for clarification. Or it could be resolved through a community discussion thus showing community maturity in decision making and Arbcom decision processing. A community which relies on mama-Arbcom for continuous reinforcement of common sense is a community which does not have common sense. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 13:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Dr.K, I think that Jimbo Wales ought to be paying attention to the remarks of Trusilver's daughter, because therein lies the root of the problem. While there are so many unsavoury characters involved in the project, great care needs to be taken to minimize the damage that they can cause through abuse of power. And that is why getting the constitution correct is so important. As it stands right now ARBCOM has merely become an industry of indulgence which serves the project no good whatsoever and which only serves to create discord. It has become the thought police who decide who can say what on which pages. If ARBCOM were dissolved right now, the only people who would notice any difference would be those who have been wronged by ARBCOM, and those who have had private scores settled in their favour through ARBCOM's abuses of power. The relevance of Sir Edward Coke is that he worked against absolutism by bringing attention to the common law. He worked to curtail the abuses of power that came with absolute monarchy. The situation that we have right now is one in which ARBCOM are the equivalent of an absolute monarch, and their rule of November 2008 is actually an arbitrary decree as opposed to a natural law. No arbitration committee should contain members who cannot comprehend the distinction between these two concepts. Jimbo Wales is a constitutional monarch, and as such, his job is to curtail corruption within the administration. Being mindful of the fact that this project attracts so many people who are only interested in abusing power, his first priority should be to weaken the blocking power of all administrators to a fixed duration of perhaps no more than 3 months. But the problem at the moment is that Jimbo Wales seems to be reluctant to face up to the reality regarding the nature of ARBCOM in its present constitution. There are those who say that he is powerless like the Queen of England. But that analogy does not hold. The Queen of England's prerogative is only as good as whether or not it would wash if exercised. In fact it hasn't been exercised since 1708. Jimbo Wales's situation doesn't compare to this. Jimbo Wales still holds all the tools to desysop and oversight every administrator. That is real power. If Jimbo Wales oversighted ARBCOM tonight and deleted it from wiki-history in a true Orwellian fashion, it would wash. Tomorrow morning some people would be asking where has ARBCOM gone? But the high ups would reply 'ARBCOM? It never existed'. And wikipedia would be a happier place. Anyway, just watch how the vote goes. If the remaining arbitrators vote for Javertism they will show themselves up, as four have already done. If they vote to acquit Trusilver, or if they abstain, it will be a victory. David Tombe (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi David: I find your ability to illustrate matters with parallels from history and literature is extraordinary, and has the merit of putting issues in an objective context where it is clear what is going on, putting aside the turmoil of the present situation. I hope that others feel the same, that history and literature can illuminate matters.

At the moment, as I understand things, ArbCom is only debating whether a case will be accepted, and are not adjudicating. If it all goes to trial, it will be six months before decisions are made. However, maybe I'm wrong. Brews ohare (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

BTW, if the case is accepted, I'd expect the role of Tsnkai's extension to the sanctions and their ultimate legality will get front and center. If it is decided that (i) they are illegitimate, and (ii) in abeyance anyway, the whole case decides for Trusilver, open and shut. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Trusilver's unblock of Brews ohare and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind comments. I have replied on my talkpage. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trusilver. Your statement and responses on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case are currently at over 800 words. The word limit is 500 words. Please cut your section down to 500 words within 24 hours or a clerk will remove it until you resubmit it within the required limit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the classification of the block you unblocked, it appears clear to me that by refusing to justify his actions, and by violating the strictures to provide a warning in advance of action, and to act only in the face of serious violations, Sandstein should be censured for violations of protocol. Brews ohare (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Trusilver: I've written a sort of essay here suggesting that the main job of Administrators should be to promote thorough and open discussion on Talk pages. Maybe that seems obvious to you, and the devil is in the details. In any event, because you have had some hands-on experience, and because I value your viewpoint, I'd appreciate your evaluation and amplification of this essay. Many thanks. Brews ohare (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look at it sometime today, just a little busy :) Trusilver 19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate your remarks; there is no rush here; I'll be away for a week. Brews ohare (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can see, you haven't commented on GoRight's recent involvement of himself in Abd's most recent block. When you suggested unblock conditions for GoRight, I cautioned explicitly what might happen: "Particularly problematic are the cases where GoRight inserts himself into disputes involving other editors." "Leaving him free...to involve himself into others' disputes (as long as he maintains a veneer of civility) pretty much takes us back to where we started."

And here we are. One disruptive insertion of himself into an RfArb clarification request (encouraging Abd to continue to engage in his own disruptive insertion of himself into disputes): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley. One spurious AN complaint, related to same: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Future Perfect's current block of Abd..

Same parties, same disruption, same misbehaviour, same problem. I really think that it's time you revisited the unblock terms that you offered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

What specifically is disruptive about GoRight commenting on Abd's request? GoRight is intimately familiar with Abd's case, this is not an example of him injecting himself into something new. I'd also be interested in what you consider "misbehavior". ATren (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have had very little internet time over the last few days. I have checked out a few of GoRight's edits and I am a little bit concerned that past bad habits might be resurfacing, but I haven't had a chance to comment or make a more comprehensive review. I will look into it when I get some time this afternoon. Trusilver 17:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please do. I will be more than happy to pro-actively address any concerns. I was specifically under the impression that I was still allowed to participate in community discussions as long as I wasn't disruptive. In the RfAr/Clarification I have simply expressed my opinion concerning the interpretation that is being applied to Abd's sanction. Lots of other editors have done the same. In the case of the AN request I have always been under the impression that any editor is allowed to ask for a review of any administrative action. This is all I have done. If I am in error on either of these topics I will certainly attempt to correct the matter.

I would also ask that you take the totality of my subsequent editing record into account rather than simply focusing on TOAT's favored items, and recognize that TOAT is very far from a neutral party in any of the issues he raises here. --GoRight (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've crossed paths with admins User:LessHeard vanU and User:Lar a fair bit since being unblocked. You might query them about whether they have noted any changes in my behavior since being unblocked and/or have any concerns. I do want to adhere to the sanctions so I welcome feedback from all three. --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll also agree to not edit either of the above mentioned venues until you have had time to complete whatever level of review you feel is appropriate and have provided me feedback here. --GoRight (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe it, but Sandstein blocked Brews again, this time for voting in the community deadmin RfC. This is after getting clarification from Tznkai, and during the ArbCom hearing. I feel that Sandstein is acting out of personal dislike, enforcing bans without judgement.Likebox (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Trusilver. Please see the above link as the Arbitration Committee have put up a motion for voting that concerns your unblock of Brews ohare. You may wish to check out the link and comment as you wish. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, this message is to inform you a proposed motion in the Arbitration Committee case that you are a party to has been posted. SirFozzie (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Slight change in location, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Trusilver.2FBrews_ohare_unblock_Motion. SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I guess your daughter was right--- there is no hope for this place. I will make a few edits and delete my account. I suggest you do the same. The pieces of shit on ArbCom couldn't write an article to save their life. I am moving to the more specific physics Wiki.Likebox (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Likebox, if we all leave because the leadership of Wikipedia bullies us away, then everyone loses. I hope you stay, doing otherwise lets these assholes win. My best friend is a high school science teacher who has always viewed my obsession with Wikipedia with what I can only describe as a fatherly tolerance. He tell his students the same thing he tells me: "You are welcome to use Wikipedia as much as you want, but you better be sure the information you are getting is correct. If the people writing the articles are biased, then the information you are getting is biased." Arbcom is doing what Arbcom does best; defending themselves and their interests at the expense of all else. If every Arbcom wannabe politician had been put into a bus and run off a cliff two years ago, then the health of the project today would be... well... pretty much the same as it is now. The truth is that Arbcom is generally pointless and has not made a single decision since its inception that really matters. The average reader of Wikipedia doesn't know nor care about Arbcom. They have, up to this point, attempted to call me an involved admin simply because I made the block, even if I haven't interacted with Brews and his friends ever before then. That failing, they attempt to call my actions political... even though I specifically blast Wikipolitics at every opportunity (way to do your research on that one, guys, nice to know you actually are doing something from your almighty thrones). I especially like that they say I didn't discuss it with the blocking admin, because they would have had to go to the herculean effort of... oh... reading my talk page to see that I did. But, the truth of the matter is that I'm laughing my ass off through this whole thing. I've already tried out a preview of the ex admin flag on my user page and I really like the looks of it! They have violated every past precedent they have ever made on desysopping to get rid of me, and that's going to bite them on the ass more than it will me... especially since I never cared to begin with. But it's really a great thing, I've been considering giving up my mop for more than a year now anyway, I was always a much happier and less cynical Wikipedian before the mop. (I won't do it though, I insist that they desysop me. I have a low view of people who quit seconds before being fired, it's just silly and I'd rather prove the point) Trusilver 01:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

(deindent) Thank you Trusilver--- I respect your independent thinking. But the history of this place mirrors the history of the Soviet Union too closely. That also looked like a noble experiment the first decade.

I came to Wikipedia with a few goals:

1. Explain the obvious gaping flaws in large-extra dimension theories clearly (check)
2. Explain Einstein's Hole Argument well enough to kill the philosophy field that has recently grown up around it (check)
4. Honor the previous generations of underappreciated physicists, like Stanley Mandelstam, Ryan Rohm, Vladimir Gribov, Geoffrey Chew, Julian Schwinger, etc, (check)
5. Explain string theory well enough to make the public understand it isn't hokum (check)
6. Place good mathematical content here, so that everyone can have pedagogical expositions of wel known results (fail)
7. Make sure that the encyclopedia is comprehensive regarding physics content (fail)

The material here is all GPLed, so that anybody can make a fork at any time. I will not contribute to this political environment, but I would be happy to contribute to any fork with better politics. In the meantime, thank you for your efforts. I will keep my account for the sole purpose of voting.Likebox (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Soviet Union did have a good educational system and they had first class scientists, even when Stalin was in power. So, it should be posible to work around the ArbCom problem here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tru. Thanks for your countless good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Even though I'm well aware of how messed up things are here, it was still a bit discouraging to see how you were treated. I hope that you don't lose sight of the truth or become disheartened by how events unfolded and were handled. We do what we can. The world just isn't a perfect place. But your kind consideration of your fellow editors and your willingness to stand up for editors being treated unfairly has been very encouraging and inspirational. I hope that you and your family are well and that you never lose sight of the important things in life. Take care and enjoy yourself. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your support, though as I wrote above, any decision they come to is largely irrelevant in my eyes. If you will notice, they desysopped Slimvirgin six months for the same thing, only she got three warnings beforehand. The difference here is that I'm openly critical of Arbcom while she wasn't. So it's nice to know that they aren't petty little children or anything, you know? :) The original incarnation of Arbcom was staffed with the best and the brightest Wikipedia had to offer, from there on it has deteriorated in much the way that any political system does over time. The paradox of political service is that those that are truly suited to the role have no interest in it, while those that shouldn't be put anywhere near a position of power are those that are most likely to seek it out. Arbcom long ago sunk down to the least common denominator of Wikipedian intelligence, why should we really expect anything useful out of them?

But what I try to focus on is this: right now there is a brand new IP contributor that is completely oblivious to the inner working of Wikipedia. The edits he/she is making right at this moment are more substantial than the sum of the decisions that Arbcom will make during this term. I find that to be a comforting thought, don't you? It means that Wikipedia really does work as long as there are new people coming in to edit where we leave off. Trusilver 21:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Maybe, but I hold out hope that someone will start a competing Wiki that operates on less sullied ground and where core principles aren't so regularly mocked by those charged with upholding them. Or maybe there will be some movement to clean this one up. Respect and collegiality matter, and a place that has gone so far in its hypocrisy as to distort the very meaning of "civility" is really a bit much to stomach. I'm awed that the contortionists have turned manners into an Orwellian tool and a means of abuse for corrupt admins. But I agree, content work is where it's at. If only there wasn't so much need to deal with the bullies and the tyrants we could all disappear into doing more of it amongst friends and colleagues. But I think things would be a lot more if there weren't those willing to stand up to the abuses when and where they can. So thanks again for doing that and not stooping to the level of the lwoest common denominator. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

You know I think you were right: the block was excessive and consensus would have supported unblocking. You can be WP:ROUGE and get away with it but only if, when someone points out a seriously valid issue (i.e: if we don't respect arbcom enforcement we are pretty much doomed, so if it's wrong we should fix that not ignore it) then you really have to put your hands up and say OK, I did what I thought was right, and for the right reasons, but I can see I probably should have done things differently. I do know what being rouge means ([3]) and I lament the rise of the process wonk and the decline of doing it right because it's right, but this case is not one you can win and sometimes the reason you can't win is because you shouldn't. I think you can move away from the brink by taking a deep breath and making a suitable statement. Of course it may be that you want nothing to do with sysopping in a place where ArbCom reaches $DECISION, which is fine, but I suspect your problem is more with the sanction and there are better ways of fixing that I think. Anyway, just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, but come on JzG, it's my week to be the martyr, I won the pool. But seriously, are you right? Absolutely. The thing is, I guess that I just have no interest in being an administrator anymore, And it's just for the reasons that you suspect. Every statement that I try to type out that is neutral and appeasing sound like a lie in my head. If they want to hear that I have no intention of doing this again, then sure, I have no intention of doing this again. But I really had no intention of doing it the first time, so take that as you will :) Did I make a mistake? Of course I did, but it was a mistake to correct a mistake and I can live with that. I wasn't about to reblock Brews for my mistake, that would have just been making two mistakes instead of one. The mop is not a big deal, at least it never has been for me. I would rather be seen as someone who was willing to sacrifice their bit for their principles rather than someone who was willing to compromise them to keep it. And hey! If nothing else, my daughter has been following this whole thing and she (who is smarter and more noble than I will ever be) says she has never been more proud of me. I don't know if you are a parent, but this is something we say to our kids all the time, but it is the greatest thing in the world to hear your kids say it back to you. So many people have stood on the sidelines and said that Sandstein was wrong, but they do nothing about it and let him continue being abusive. I stood up against that, it was the right thing to do and I will accept any punishment for doing so. Trusilver 00:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		message For being just all kinds of awesome. Maybe I'm even inspired enough to come back and work on an article again :D DesertAngel 03:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Reply

Definitely a shame for having to take punishment for exercising good judgment. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply