Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:16, 15 March 2010

Archives

Archive 1 - Up to 4 July 2007 Archive 2 - 4 July 2007 to 23 July 2007 Archive 3 - 23 July 2007 to 6 August 2007 Archive 4 - 7 August 2007 to 19 September 2007 Archive 5 - 19 September 2007 to 26 January 2008 Archive 6 - 26 January 2008 to 6 May 2008 Archive 7 - 6 May 2008 to 26 January 2009 Archive 8 - 26 January 2009 to 19 February 2009 Archive 9 - 21 February 2009 to 6 June 2009 Archive 10 - In progress

Re:adminship

You removed my vandel report

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

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

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. 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)

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. ] Thanks for taking the time and for the advise. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of user 63.116.149.147

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)

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

Your comments on Wiki Politics

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)

/laughs/ Yes. Anyone who suggests that Misplaced Pages 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)

Avatar Critical reception rewrite

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)

LustyRoars

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)

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)

Reverts for the Ikonboard Page

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Unblock request from User talk:71.48.23.4

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)

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)

GoRight thanks

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)

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)

GoRight's unblock conditions

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 – Misplaced Pages-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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I would be remiss were I not to note that the 'public' face of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation; it doesn't mean just pages tagged with the {{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}} header. Is that correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Trusilver, rather than "rehabilitate" I suggest reading Restorative justice. In my opinion Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Thanks

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)

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

The conditions of the topic ban.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Goright`s bail conditions

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? Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

Participation at my RfA

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherlleft 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Viking Age

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)

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

About that ANI thing

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

Your User page

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

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)

Blocking 71.100.31.227

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)

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)

Thanks for your RfA Support

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)

Blocking 84.112.168.187

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)

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)

Your comment on the block of Brews ohare

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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

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)

Misuse of privilleges

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. _πraxis 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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. _πraxis 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. _πraxis 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Barnstar Worthy

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For thinking about the best interest of Brews and the pedia all in one. Your clear concise unblock rationale will hopefully open the eyes of more admin. You presented a well thought concise response. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		You made a difficult choice in a tough environment--- it is only people such as yourself that can save this project.Likebox (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For doing what is good for Misplaced Pages instead of mindlessly defending Arbcom sanctions. The latter hurts Misplaced Pages while Arbcom doesn't get the feedback it needs when in rare cases it makes decisions that are not so good. Count Iblis (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For acting in the spirit of the law and sending a strong message that good faith contributors have allies in the administration, for encouraging Brews who is one of Wiki's best scientific graphic designers and a good content contributor, and for thinking long and hard and doing what you think is right. Awickert (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For being a lucid thinker and defender of high principles. You have translated these high principles into concrete action that defends the values of intelligent thought and discourse in Misplaced Pages. You have thus empowered all good faith contributors. To paraphrase Junius: "The subject who is truly loyal to Misplaced Pages will neither advise nor submit to arbitrarily harsh measures." Thank you. Dr.K. πraxis 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For acting as a force for good in the face of adversity. We need alot more like you to rescue this project. David Tombe (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the unblock and on the state of Misplaced Pages in general

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

It's not a matter of agreeing to disagree

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. Durova 03:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Durova 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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. Durova 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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. Durova 04:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. _πraxis 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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. ;) Durova 04:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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. _πraxis 04:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

(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)

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. Durova 05:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Goes back to the cauldron to taste the broth and add more newt eyes.

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

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

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. :) Durova 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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. _πraxis 05:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(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). Durova 05:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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.  03:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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. Durova 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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.  18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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.  13:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages: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—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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

Thank you

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

Your statement at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hello Trusilver. Your statement and responses on Misplaced Pages: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 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein

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)

Request for opinion

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)

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

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)

GoRight's recent edits

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): Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley. One spurious AN complaint, related to same: Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Brews is blocked again

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)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Trusilver's unblock of_Brews ohare

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 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion posted

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)

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

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)

Likebox, if we all leave because the leadership of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

(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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tru. Thanks for your countless good faith contributions to Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Rouge admins vs. needless martyrdom

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 () 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)

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)

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

I know what you mean, but think about it this way: does Misplaced Pages need people who do the right thing instinctively rather than wait for a week of navel-gazing first? Of course it does. Will those people be right all the time? Hell no, nobody's perfect. So there's no shame in saying sorry, I thought it was right, plainly it wasn't, mea culpa. In my job I am highly respected and valued as a source of advice, and one of the reasons is that when I get it wrong I put my hands up and set about fixing it. So in this case you could put your hands up and engage in dialogue about how to word things so that they are less open to dispute and misinterpretation, and thereby I think you will have served the purpose of improving things without the need to lose an admin who's prepared to stand up and be counted when it matters. You're free to choose as you will, of course, but at this point I'd probably be sending an email to the arbitrators which is honest and also solicits advice. I've found several of the individual arbitrators to be quite willing to give advice. Or you could even mail Jimbo, he has given me sound advice in the past as well. Guy (Help!) 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a very good point. The arbitration case is still jumping all over the place, so I'm going to take a little bit of time to think about it. Not long, as I'm sure arbcom isn't going to wait forever, but it deserves some serious thought. Trusilver 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, we (you know, the Evil) don't go trawling for causes to flex our muscles or desysop random admins. Despite the oft amusing, if needless, cries of oppression and misguided analogies to Stalinist russia, we actually try hard to avoid that kind of mess. Was the original block wrong? Maybe. I have honestly not looked into it — nor should I. The problem isn't that the block or unblock was right or wrong, but that you took it upon yourself to make a symbolic unblock unilaterally. Like or not, breaking the rules for the sake of a political statement isn't a good idea when it's done for its own sake.

There are, literally, dozens of way you could have made your concerns about the block known; and several venues where it would have been appropriate to do so — and even if you didn't know of them there are a dozen active arbs whose talkpage or mailbox could have been used to inquire. That you took the time to ponder the matter, and yet still unblocked without consulting with us or the community, or raising the issue at all, was an error. There were better ways to handle the problems you perceived (be it the block itself, or the apparently nebulous appeal processes); I'm not voting to desysop you because you made an error, I'm voting to desysop you because you are unable, or unwilling, to note the goof and to not repeat it. Your own ethics might force you to act in such cases, and while that is a defensible moral stance it's also one that is incompatible with being an admin.

In the end, Socrates is said to have drunk the Hemlock; not because he believed that what he did was wrong, but because he understood the need for society's structures. I'd much rather you avoided the cup altogether. — Coren  02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is the same, recant pleas from people. If I miss your point (or intentions) I'm sorry Coren but the underlying theme at this Arbcom case and many Arbcom cases is only if they recant will they be "saved" Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to your view but it would be better to keep quiet for now because I don't think you actually understand what's being said here and I think your words are (as in several discussions around Brews) inflaming not calming things. As Coren says, this is not about being right or wrong it's about accepting that the system we have, for better or worse, is the onyl one we've got, and if it needs fixing then one should fix it not ignore it because if we start ignoring it because we think we're right then we have no defence at all against those who ignore it when we think they are wrong - and then we have anarchy. With nearly 2,000 admins virtually anybody short of Willy on Wheels will find someone to unblock them. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What's funny is that no one is talking about the block itself, just the unblocking. Now if he came in and without a posted reason just unblocked it would be a much bigger issue. Right now Arbcom is going around holding their ass because they see their powers being usurped. Seriously there is no discussion on the arbcom case for the actions itself. I understand fully what's going on here, this is a inquisition style trial. Literally everyone prejudged Trusilver for his stance in unblocking Brews. The main theme has been, recant and we shall let you keep your mop. If you stomach sycophants who agree just to agree, by all means I shouldbe silent. I however am not a sycophant, I do not blindly agree to what the powerful few are saying. Maybe people don't like my comments because I am showing the ugly side of their behavior they are trying to cover up. It's not pleasant to think of one's failings, however I have no intentions of turning a blind eye to this bullshit. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

More inflammatory nonsense. The issue of the enforcement ambiguity is being discussed, and in terms sufficiently measured that a resolution is possible. I strognly suggest (yet again) that the time is long past for you to butt out and leave it to much calmer voices. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Calmer like your own? Hmmmmm, I don't think so, you say that my statements are inflammatory nonsense then you obviously haven't read the "inflammatory nonsense" this entire case is. If you wish to be a sycophant please continue to blindly agree, I myself am not and will not sit by the side while bullshit is perpetrated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy's right about the enforcement, and while the proposal before arbcom is not what I hoped for, it is a step in the right direction, and these things rarely happen all at once. And really, if my desysopping prompts a policy change that corrects a problem, then that makes it the most important admin action I've ever taken(I don't mean that anywhere near as tounge-in-cheek as it sounds). It's given me a different perspective on a great many things, ARBCOM more than anything. I have more respect for a few of them than I had this time last week (and I don't just mean the ones that supported me). But really, I would appreciate a minimum of arguments on my behalf. I appreciate those that have been in my corner all through this and I respect those that haven't. But either way... long and drawn out nonconstructive arguments are the opposite of what I want to see here. Over this whole thing you will have seen me use the following phrase several times: "agree to disagree". I use it a lot for a reason. When you have ten Wikipedians in a room, you are going to have eleven distinct opinions (at least), not all of those opinions are compatible with each other. Sometimes you just have to respect the other person and walk away, knowing that you aren't going to come to an agreement this time. Trusilver 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Well, I don't think you do such things either. I think that at your hearts, every arbcom member has set out with the intent to better Misplaced Pages. My personal opinion is that you mostly fail, not out of personal failing, but as an error systemic to the nature of how it functions. Some of the shit you get hammered for is deserved, some of it isn't. I've said somewhere on this talk page, I don't know if it was days or months ago, that I respect arbcom members (though I rarely show it) for their intentions, even if those intentions often fail to lead to valid results. But, that's what happens when you are asked to find solutions to generally unsolvable problems - someone will always hate you for it. I think a few of my descriptions of Arbcom over the last few days have been a bit over the top, but FWIW (I actually had to look that up, I'm not really born of the internet generation, and abbreviating things always throws me for a loop) I'm sorry for some of those things.

I do feel that you misunderstand when you call this political, that or you have a very myopic view of things. There was nothing political about this, and I certainly didn't intend for the kind of odd uprising that has surrounded this issue. There was a number of failures in this entire debacle, and only the last one was mine. I don't mind being desysopped, the only thing that I really mind is the possibility that the greater issue is never addressed. This was an issue that should have never been allowed to reach the point it did before I unblocked. I isolate it to five key events:

• The block was entirely incorrect. It is my feeling that any time that AE is invoked, the evidence that the violation occurred should be unshakable. Sandstein blocked on the basis that Brews violated his probation of physics related topics. Nearly everyone that has commented on this with an opinion of the block says it should have been handled differently or not at all.
• The length of the block for the tenuous nature of the circumstances was needlessly punitive. Sandstein himself told me on my talk page that he chose that length because it was the longest he could give under the terms of the AE decision. I think most anyone else who looked at it would have made a different choice there.
• All attempts Brews and those surrounding him made to remedy the situation were met with resistance and vague suggestions that they weren't using the proper venue, or correct procedure wasn't being followed. This is the biggest pet peeve I have on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is NOT a bureaucracy, anyone who has time to tell someone that they aren't doing something the right way, should have the time to help them do it the right way.
• The unblock request was allowed to sit there for six days without anyone doing anything. Sandstein refused to unblock and refused to give any terms by which to unblock. Several people commented that it might have gone differently if Brews had admitted to wrongdoing, but I don't fault him for that one. Failure #1 tells the story there. I would have been irritable to be blocked in that manner, I would have been downright irate to be told I should apologize for a mistake I didn't make. The failure of the current AE system is that it allows an administrator not of arbcom to, by extension, grant themselves arbcom ability without a clear or speedy oversight.
• Brews was unblocked without going through the proper channels and was not reblocked after the exact wording of the AE was brought forth.

I take full responsibility for that last failure. I was not about to reblock Brews for my mistake, because it was entirely my own responsibility to do so. You may see that the other four failures are invalid, and in that case we just agree to disagree. But one thing that this has done is brought to light the bottlenecks and the fallibility of the AE system. There were definitely better ways to do it, but what's done is done. As I said the other night, I don't have any intention of doing such a thing again, but I really never had an intention of doing such a thing in the first place. 99.5% of my admin actions over the last 2.5 years have surrounded anti-vandalism just because (despite what has happened here) I hate wikipolitics. Losing the mop only adds an additional step to my primary function. That's not a red flag to the bull saying "go ahead, I dare you" but just to say that adminship is not a big deal. I can be okay, even pretty damn proud, of losing my mop over a situation that brings a greater need to light. You might not like the methods I used and I might not like yours, but I think that overall we both really like Misplaced Pages and we both want the best for the project. Desysop me, sure, but as Cool Hand Luke already noted in the arbcom case, I would really appreciate it if you guys thought long and hard about the AE process, and keep this from happening again. Trusilver 04:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		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)

		The Original Barnstar
		Your recent comments demonstrate a perspective commonly missing here at enwiki. Keep it up. –Juliancolton |  21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Trusilver 22:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Options

Trusilver, why don't you do one of the following:

1. Pledge to respect ArbCom directives, even if you disagree with the resulting actions of your administrative peers. To wit, if you observe an improper enforcement action, you agree to appeal through the normal channels, rather than invoke IAR.
2. If you cannot in good conscience follow the processes required of administrators, simply resign the position and happily continue editing.

I think it is bad for Misplaced Pages when force is used to accomplish things, rather than discussion and agreement. Jehochman 03:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Short answer

1. Because it lets Arbcom and Sandstein off the hook.
2. Because it lets me off the hook.

Long answer

1. I think this has already been made clear. I have no intention of doing something like this again, just as I never really had any intention of doing it the first time. I made a decision because I felt it was the right thing to do. Would I make that same decision again, likely no. I can very easily say that I wouldn't do it again, it's something else entirely to recant and say I made a mistake, because I don't see it as that. Worse... recanting (in my mind) means saying that there isn't a problem that needs fixing.
2. I did something wrong and I accept responsibility; but I will be an admin right up until the moment Arbcom fires me. I have a very low opinion of those who resign their position to evade responsibility. Trusilver 03:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a disagreement here. You're not letting somebody else off the hook when you pledge to do your best. If they screw up, that's a separate matter entirely. ArbCom has said to use process X when seeking to overturn an application of their sanctions. Process X should work properly. If you try to use X, and the process is to slow and sucky, then you can say, "I am unblocking because the user should not be kept blocked an excessively long time when our appeals process is broken. Fix the process and I will be glad to follow it." Jehochman 04:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And if the process is sucky and doesn't lead to sensible results, say "I am unblocking because the appeals process sucks and fixing it will be an interminable process, if it ever happens, because there is no working procedure in place to establish reform." ?? Yeh, sure. Brews ohare (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The process is fine. Appeal to ARBCOM, get the ban modified. When bans should be repealed, they are. That yours wasn't is not a sign that the process is broken, it's a sign that your behaviour is not up to snuff. You're banned from any physics-related topics, discussions, and so on. You're also banned from Misplaced Pages space. You posted in Misplaced Pages space, in a physics-related dispute, with the same people from the original ARBCOM/SoL and it's aftermath. It's a pretty cut and dry situation here.

If you don't agree with a ban, get it repealed FIRST. Violating it to prove a point, or because you don't agree with it, will only prove that the ban is needed. Appealing blocks every second week, and creating drama everywhere they go while doing so (such as appealing to Jimbo, taking massive dumps on ARBCOM and admins every chance they get, and so on) does not help you one bit, and this too proves the ban is needed. We told Likebox that the appeal was too soon and premature. He did it anyway. That alone probably set you back 3 months. Then you violate your ban while that case is still ongoing (although pretty clear that the ban would be unmodified), which pretty much confirms that the ban is justified. You and your friends really are your own worst enemy, and you've been told that several times now.

Play by the rules, and you'll get unbanned eventually. Keep breaking them, and you'll end up get indef-blocked. It's really up to you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb: You have brought so many trivial and stupid actions against me receiving no support, save that of alter-ego Jehochman, that you need help in achieving some sort of objectivity about the reasons for rules and how they relate to content creation on WP. My personal goal has always been content creation, and yet you have embroiled me for significant periods in stupid unnecessary debates over absolutely nothing, and deliberately so. You continually belittle my content creation efforts, which far exceed your own in content, quality and in quantity. You appear out of the blue, out of context, to interfere in normal proceedings with disruptive AN/I actions, and drag on unending disputes over trivia. You practice wikilawyering at the first rank, IMO. Brews ohare (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No Brews, YOU are the wikilawyer. YOU are the one disputing blocks on technical grounds. I do not show up out of the blue, I don't stalk your contributions, yet I always keep running into you. The reason for that is that YOU aren't following the terms of your block and do not keep away from physics-related topics and discussions. I supported you many times now. Remember how I supported you in contributing to mathematical physics topics? Remember how I said that Likebox's ARBCOM's appeal request shouldn't be held against you because this was Likebox displaying poor judgement?

I really don't care who's has more "content creation efforts". Perhaps it's you (although I doubt it), perhaps it's me, at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If you don't like being stung by bees, don't kick in the bee's nest every two weeks. Reply or not, I'm unwatching this page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are both great content creators. Just imagine how much you could do if you actually made even a half-assed attempt to work together. That aside, I would greatly appreciate if you didn't use my talk page as your battleground. Trusilver 17:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Brews ohare (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm being completely serious. I've gone way back through both of your histories and there WAS a time that the two of you were able to talk to each other civilly and rationally. How about giving that another shot? Why not have a discourse that doesn't culminate in an ANI thread? You both bring a whole lot to the project, I think we would all be better off if you both could accept that and find ways to work together. Because what we are seeing right now... that's not going so good. Trusilver 19:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I took you as serious Trusilver. I am not bringing anything to AN/I, and Headbomb is not bringing anything that matters to AN/I. If you want us off your page, you'll have to find some other venue to be a marriage broker. Brews ohare (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, you are about the most tenacious person I've ever met on Misplaced Pages. We have never really interacted in the past and I regret that. Anyone that is as stubborn as I am demands respect. :)

I agree with you, of course. I suppose I must strike you as an incredible pain in the ass, it's (mostly) not intentional. My objection to this whole thing, and a large source of my animosity toward Arbcom, comes from my dislike of relying on process at the expense of common sense. Process is important, but not to the extent that it prevents you from accomplishing things in an easier, less bureaucratic manner. We see this constantly in the overuse of Arbcom. I have never commented on an Arbcom case, (well... before now) but I have read every single one since its inception. Arbcom is overused. (and reading over your past comments, I think you agree with me on this) Arbcom is a tremendous tool, it is also tremendously damaging, we should never use a cumbersome bureaucracy to solve our problems if ANY, ANY, ANY, ANY, ANY other option exists. By my count, I feel that only eleven out of the total sum of all Arbcom cases actually required Arbcom. That's just my opinion, of course, but if you can't get community consensus for something, maybe there's a reason for it. Circling back in on the point: There was a way to cut this off very early. There was at least one Arbcom member that knew this was going on early on and chose to do nothing and let the bureaucracy handle it, rather than use a lighter touch and head that entire process off. There are way too many people that hide behind "I'm doing my job" or "It's not my job". Arbcom members are (arguably) leaders of our community, and as such it becomes their job to do just that. An Arbcom member knew about the unblock request and should have handled the unblock request himself. He failed to do so, I did. I'm not even going to say which way that member should have gone with the unblock, but something should have been done.

I do pledge to do my best, something that I made clear during my RFA. Ironically, it was to Coren . I'd like to think that the long time that I sat on the unblock, as well as my very clear reasoning behind it, combined with my discussion with Sandstein beforehand, show that I wanted very much for the process to work correctly. I acted only when I felt the the number of failures prompted it. I doubt that anyone believes that I have or ever would unblock someone without understanding the gravity of situation, or that I would do such a thing needlessly or without a good reason. The problem there, I suppose, is the subjectivity of the words "needless" or "good reason". Well, we can't all think the same way... if we did, this whole encyclopedia building thing would be going a lot faster, wouldn't it? Trusilver 04:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you action was so bad, though your explanation was the equivalent of sucker tracks. (In skiing, when an expert lays down tracks through closed or dangerous terrain, beginners may follow and get into trouble.) IAR is not a reason to undo arbitration enforcement. If you had explained then way you are explaining now: a bungled appeal process and an atrocious failure of anybody to address the unblock request promptly, I think you could have set a good precident. At this point, we all ought to go to WP:BLOCK and document how to handle AE blocks, and what to do when an unblock request is ignored, or unresolved, for an excessive length of time. My feeling is that all unblock requests should be acted on within 24 hours, or 25% of the block duration, whichever is shorter. We should not allow disputed blocks to become fait accompli. (Brews, chill out. Your discourse is unproductive.) Jehochman 17:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sucker tracks? Hah! I'm not a skier, so I've never heard that term before, but I love it. Yeah, I should have just taken the time to type out about the fifteen hundred words that would have been necessary to fully explain everything (rather than taking twice as many words to tell it a little at a time). I haven't spoken anything about IAR since then, but I never really intended it to be accepted in the manner it has. My invoking IAR was mostly tounge-in-cheek. I actually believed that most people would see the chain of failures that occurred and talk about those rather than bringing up IAR, I DEFINITELY wouldn't have mentioned IAR if I knew it was going to detract from the point behind the unblock - a system that failed to function correctly. I like what's happening though, the problem is noted and it's being talked about. In my mind, that's A Good Thing. There are two projectspace areas that I think should be acted on in an extremely timely manner - WP:AIV and WP:RFU. The first has never been a problem, the second is a constant problem. It always makes me a little pissy to note that unblock requests have been left up there for three, four, five days at a time because nobody has the guts to act on them. I think there is a serious problem developing where many admins see a block that shouldn't have been made, but at the same time they don't want the hassle of overriding one of their peers, so nothing gets resolved. I like your idea though, I think there should be a guideline for when an unblock request should have been processed. As far as AE goes, I agree with you, there should be a greater community discussion on how to handle AE blocks, it's past due. Trusilver 18:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If blocks were implementable only in clear cases, no problem would come up. However, badly formulated, ambiguous and vague sanctions lead to this problem: an admin interprets the sanctions one way, leading to a block. A different interpretation would not lead to a block. However, there is great desire among admins to present a united front, like 'parents' to their 'children'. So the underlying difficulty of a poorly worded sanction is not considered, and instead we have drivel rained down to justify the first call. There are several ways to fix this problem. One is to refuse to enforce badly phrased sanctions. Sooner or later sanctions will respond by being worded properly. A second way is to actually revisit the badly worded sanction and decide upon a clearer definition. Maybe the revised sanction will not accord with the intent of the original decision: that can be fixed by further amendment. But in the meantime the block becomes easily ruled upon. Perhaps there are other approaches. However, mealymouthed testimonials of blind support for wobbly decisions aren't helpful. Brews ohare (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd add that sanctions should be for the good of WP, to aid content development. They are not intended to placate a majority, nor to enforce a particular view, nor to exact obeisance to administrators. Sanctions that are not clearly in support of content development should be ignored or stricken. Brews ohare (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread is a prime example of anytime someone connected to Brews makes a claim it is immediately denied by the other side, they then complain that we are the ones being disruptive but truthfully we are the only ones trying to solve the problem. Arbcom and their lackeys are just trying to sweep this under a rug. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sorry

Or you could simply stop digging your hole deeper. I know, Sandstein's conduct here hasn't been perfect either, hence my and Carcharoth's responses to him, and the other comments from Arbs before his second statement. That doesn't excuse you acting like a dick, though. Drop the attitude and move on. I, at least, and I believe several other arbs as well, would be willing to consider a request to grant the tools back in a few months, but not if you keep acting like this. Hersfold 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Per motions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

1) The unblock of User:Brews ohare by User:Trusilver was done without the explicit written consent of the Arbitration Committee, or a full and active community discussion as required. The Arbitration Committee explicitly rejects Trusilver's defense of WP:IAR in this situation. However, since the block has since expired, it will not be reapplied. For misuse of his administrator tools, User:Trusilver's administrator rights are revoked. He may regain them through a new WP:RfA or through a request to the Arbitration Committee.

2) The Arbitration Committee modifies the Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity as follows:

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 consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.

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.

Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Well now that farce is over, truly sorry that you were essentially collateral damage in a long standing dispute based on lies and politics. I know I for one am grateful that you stood up to your ideals and didn't capitulate. Hopefully your case examplifies the need for overall reform in arbcom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Huh. And they were so close to doing the right thing. Typical ArbCom. Fuck 'em. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure, had that happened, some kind of review would have immediately convened to look into allegations of Arbcom doing something that made sense and see to it that it never happens again. That kind of behavior is frowned upon :) Trusilver 06:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Man, I should pay more attention to Arbcom stuff before decisions are logged at the noticeboard. I haven't read into the merit of the AE block and hadn't noticed any drama over it at the time, but based on the opening statement and some responses I've read, desysopping seems like a complete overreaction to me. Despite your statement below, I'm truly sorry that it came to this, and very much disagree with that result. I don't find Misplaced Pages improved through it. Amalthea 07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My statement on the last couple weeks

To quote Steve Smith: Refusing to adhere to the rules when they go against one's conscience is noble and commendable. My vote at this point is not punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that Trusilver's scruples are not consistent with the expectations of an administrator, and that he is too principled to suppress his principles for the sake of retaining the bit." I can't tell you how great it is to be told that you are too principled to be an administrator. I take this statement to be among the greatest compliments that anyone has ever given me.

The most interesting part of the entire arbcom debacle is that two weeks ago, I was probably a month or less from throwing my arms up and retiring from Misplaced Pages. Two and a half years of admin work was soul-killing and had drawn me way off track from what I had created an account on Misplaced Pages to do in the first place. The hilarity of the situation is that the only thing Sandstein would have needed to do to get rid of me permanently was... nothing at all. Instead, I've hit a second wind that I wasn't even aware I had, I feel like I have purpose again and I really want to work on Misplaced Pages again, it's not the onerous task that it turned into over the last couple years. Without the perceived need to get admin work done, I'm getting ready to do something that I haven't done since taking up the mop in '07... I'm about to start working on an article again. I feel GOOD about this, better than I have in a very, very long time.

A crusade formed around me over the last couple weeks, and I appreciate the hell out of each and every one of you that has been in my corner throughout this entire thing, especially Dr.K, who had been going around in the background, negotiating on my behalf; something I didn't even realize until looking around at some talk pages yesterday. Jehochman, who seemed hell-bent on "saving" me, whether I wanted him to or not. Brews ohare, who has spent more time defending me than I spent defending him on his actual unblock. Then, of course, User:Hell in a Bucket, User:Likebox, User:Count Iblis, User:David Tombe et. al. for being so vocal in my defense.

One note I do have on Arbcom, though. Try not to be too hard on them. Arbcom as an entity is inept and leaves me with the Benny Hill theme song running through my head whenever I see them inaction in action. BUT, there are good arbcom members, and I don't just mean there are ones that supported me. I have built up a huge amount of respect over the last couple weeks for at least two of them who voted against me... and then there's Carcharoth (I still don't know how to pronounce this, I have always just made a noise in the back of my throat like I'm choking on a grape), who I once referred to as "The poster boy for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY." But looking over much of the work he's done since taking on the Arbcom mantle, I find that a lot of my original misgivings toward him were baseless, and if I had it to do over again, I think I would have voted in support of him. (even if he had voted against me in this). This is not to say that I don't think there's a handful of Arbcom members that could be shoved in front of a subway tomorrow without making the project a poorer place, but it's a smaller handful than I would have said two weeks ago.

Most of them, especially the gentleman above, still seem to think that they are punishing me with this. I said early on that I didn't care about the mop, and I had considered giving it up a while back, yet I think it makes them feel better to think they have won one for the team. I'm still in horrified amusement of an arbcom member/crat/checkuser that still seems to think that I never had any discussion with Sandstein before unblocking brews (way to do your research there, friend! that community trust in you was well placed!) In my case though, desysopping has no more significance than an admonishment (which has roughly the same significance as those public service announcements that keep telling me to please stop using incandescent light bulbs). I will not be seeking the mop again. With great respect to the three excellent administrators that nominated me, I wouldn't go near the mop again if I were paid handsomely to. I treat my time as an admin in much the same way I think of a mid-air near collision I once had - I don't regret it happening, and it gave me a lot of interesting stories to tell, but I'd rather it never happen again.

I digress though, the point is that arbcom members are well meaning, and should be given a measure of respect for stepping into a thankless (that seems understating it) job. Some are more competent than others, (and in direct correlation: some are more committed than others) but most of them took up their position because they want to do what's best for the project.

One further note... I've already had one editor announce they are leaving the project over this whole shitstorm. I don't want to keep anyone here who doesn't want to be here, but I'd appreciate if nobody leaves in my name... that is the opposite of what I want. I still very much believe in this project, and I fully intend to be here ten years from now reverting vandalism.

With that all said, I'm getting back to work. Last time I checked, the encyclopedia wasn't finished yet. Trusilver 06:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't tend to give barnstars, but this response to this situation deserves some kind of recognition. Well done. Best, Rd232 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver--- you mentioned me obliquely--- I threw my hands up when it became obvious to me that you were going to be desysopped. I have been following this discussion since then, for the sake of those involved, although I am certain the situation is beyond any hope of repair.

Now that the foregone conclusion has been reached, I implore you: Please do not do any more content work! That simply gives the administrators here more power. Someone will start a competing Misplaced Pages with the same exact material and different politics. Citizendium is a step in the right direction.

The number of casualties of ArbCom's irremedial stupidity is large and growing, in addition to yourself, Brews, and Tombe, there's User:ChildofMidnight, User:MZMcBride, and many others. The issue is too entrenched to be fixed: Every major content contributor is being hunted down and banned, until the only ones left are the Jehochmans and the Sandsteins. These people cannot write substantive content, they are too stupid to understand anything other than rules and politics. Without careful arrangement, people such as this eventually take over all human endeavors.

Arbs act with slow deliberations and rationalizations to reach foregone conclusions. Remember that this project was an anarchy for a long time: rules were enforced only haphazardly and incompetently, and only when there is something like unanimous consent. Anarchy is the only way that projects like this can move forward.

This project has failed. It's over. Please open your eyes. They entrusted decision making power to a community based on single-party voting, not based on technical contributions. That is exactly the way the Soviet Union operated, and such a system always produces the exact same results.Likebox (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

When the moment comes...

I think we can probably have the largest number of co-noms of any RfA in Misplaced Pages's history. I think this was a wrong decision, albeit for the right reasons (we can't have anarchy, but I don't think this was an anarchic action). Guy (Help!) 09:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be almost worth it, just for the sheer entertainment value :D Trusilver 14:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For sanity and good humor Brews ohare (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Trusilver: It has been educational to see how you have handled your participation in this matter. Thank you for that example, which (can you imagine!!) is more significant than undoing the last 6 hours of Sandstein's week-long block.

I would gladly have avoided this example of administrative ability to ‘solve’ nonexistent problems of their own devising, instead of addressing the real issues in front of them. Involving such committees in a decision is like asking a three-year old in a hurry to the bathroom to discuss Aristotle. Illumination is less likely than getting pissed on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&action=history