User talk:NE Ent/block log

blocklogibus malleorum
I understand why you might want to stop the discussion of Schulz' block, but...

Malleus's block log (maybe one or two are justified) is an absolute fuckpile of clueless actions by clueless admins. Some of which have subsequently got some clue, possibly. But it's all still there. And it all informs decisions taken. I have never seen somebody so right so often criticised so much, mainly due to prejudice. This is not Grawp here. This is not Willy on Wheels. But apparently, this is "not a Wikipedian" pablo 23:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur that the block log is a problem. I see two issues:


 * On the one hand it's used by one group of editors as "proof" Malleus's is "bad," (in whatever context the citer wishes to emphasize).
 * On the other hand it's used by another group as "proof" of conspiracy/incompetence by either Wikipedia as a whole or some subgroup thereof.
 * In the original Civility Enforcement ArbCom case I recommend it be redacted as a remedy -- like 95% of my suggestions around here it went down in flames.
 * That said, using the log as a reason to pursue a complaint against an admin doesn't make sense. As a reductio ad absurdum example, should we pursue action against 28bytes for reblocking Malleus per his request? That made the log longer, too.
 * Schulz's action was quickly reverted and I personally don't see any benefit to pursuing it further on ANI. Historically such discussions just grind into stalemates. He's not listed as open to recall; in theory, an ArbCom case request or RFC/U could be started, but I really don't see a desysop happening. Nobody Ent 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Shulz imo used his tools, deliberately, in a personal way - because he could - a dysop is unlikely, but the block didn't enlarge his wiki reputation that is for sure - and he has used his free pass' - he won't be able to use his advanced permission in a similar way in future or he will be much more in danger of losing them -  You  really  can  21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason put forth for the RFC/U. I think the block was a mistake, but we all make mistakes.  Talk of a RFC/U or desysop, without even presenting any evidence of abuse, is premature and not helpful.  Until some reasonable evidence is presented, I have to assume it was a good faith action that I think was was a good faith mistake, but still made in good faith. WP:AGF is clear about this, but more importantly, common sense and fairness dictate that we shouldn't point fingers without something to substantiate the claims.  It really isn't helpful and is only inflaming the situation to even have the discussion at this point. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 21:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Schulz imo used his tools, deliberately, in a personal way - because he could - his ego was pricked and he was angry and hurt and he lashed out using his advanced permissions - he blocked one minute after the post by Malleus in this discussion - a disruptive use of them and he should resign them.  -  You  really  can  21:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't see where Schulz was angry and hurt, perhaps you could shed some light on that. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * He used his his advanced permissions to block a user one minute after the last comment in this thread - this discussion  You  really  can  21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I still don't see Schulz was angry and hurt. His communication seems calm and in keeping with being an admin, (although 'I suggest you retract it. I also suggest you apologise' are disparaging comments). He warned MF that repeated violation of policies can lead to blocks, then after a crude MF reply acted on the blocked. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A matter of personal interpretation then as I have said, IMO - blocking one minute after a personal comment against the admin is also open to interpretation that an admin is supposed to avoid- As I said - no one will dysop him but he has one life less - You  really  can  22:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. It's seems to be a partly involved block and also it seems one in which the talk page engagement was made without understanding of the mongo/mf history or the Arbitration/Requests context. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 22:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)