User talk:Polarscribe/Archive 7

Resysopping
Given the circumstances in which you returned I thought it was most appalling that during the edit warring you requested admin tools without making a single constructive edit. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt over the "socking" but the fact that you requested your admin tools back during that seemed power hungry and wrong given that you haven't constructively edited in 4 years. You claim that "the community voted me to be an admin" yet back in 2005 RFA was radically different to today, we were desperate for admins and very few people turned out to vote in them, and you simply would not pass RFA today. I'm not asking you to go for another RFA but given the time you have abandoned us a LOT has changed on here. Instead I ask you to set aside your admin rights for a full month, prove to me and us that you are a worthy admin and would use the tools to good purpose and at the end of the month Bisanz or Nihon or whoever can give them back to you, which given their obvious desperation for administrators would likely do so, unless you do something radically worrying in the meantime. I think its the least you can do to regain the community's trust that you are still worthy of having full admin rights but also that you are genuine about wanting to improve the encyclopedia as a resource and respect editors like myself and the other very active contributors on here that we can trust you again. I'll return to wikipedia once you can illustrate to me that your return to wikipedia is 100% in good faith and that you really want wikipedia to improve as a resource and that you have no intent to your your admin powers to block regular editors from editing articles they disagree with you on. Given what I contribute to wikipedia in an entire month, to not do so would suggest that content doesn't concern you, and that you are in fear of losing your admin rights permanently, rather than genuinely wanting to help the community and improve the website. I think you'd instantly gain far more respect from people here for doing this in the meantime. My return to wikipedia is in your hands. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  14:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blofeld's idea. Having a month without the tools would allow you to "mix in" - I can say - with the current community and learn how policies have changed since four years ago. A month isn't long at all, and it would be a good thing to do. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am amenable to this suggestion, iff it is clear that the relinquishment is entirely voluntary - that is to say, after one month's time, I may place a request on the WP:BN and have the administrator tools returned without further process. I am willing to make a good faith effort to mend these fences, but that does not mean I will give the community a veto over the return of my admin bit. If it wasn't so clear throughout 80,000 pages of discussion that the request for adminship process is completely and fundamentally broken, I would have considered that. But the fact remains that the community granted me the tools and they have never been removed from me for cause.
 * Note that this is not because I am opposed to the community per se, only that endless reams of discussions and experience have long ago pointed out the numerous flaws with "community de-sysopping" or "admin review" or whatever one tries to call it. There is a reason we have an ArbCom - to provide fair, open and reasoned dispute resolution that involves common sense, policy and understanding, not a !vote of whoever bothers to stumble upon a noticeboard. polarscribe (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this is subject to the fair and good faith reasoning that I'm not just going to deadmin myself, disappear from the encyclopedia and come back in a month asking for the tools back. I plan to participate and contribute throughout that period - I may not make 10,000 edits, but neither will I go ball up in a hole somewhere.
 * Also, Dr. Blofeld, I suggest that you consider that it takes two to create an edit war, and using rollback to revert a good-faith insertion of "disputed" tags (no content removal, just a disputed tag) is calculated to inflame tensions, not to reduce them. I will state for the record that I had and have absolutely no intentions of using administrator tools in the dispute you and I were involved in, and if I had done so, that would have clearly been abusive and grounds for desysopping and blocking.
 * I say that because there is a sharp difference between what happened four years ago and what happened earlier this week - the article in question four years ago was essentially a cesspool of pedophiles, its creator has since been banned by ArbCom and the page nuked from Earth. I went overboard trying to stop it, but there was a good-faith reason for doing so. No matter what my feelings about the Alcatraz article, the content issues there pale in comparison to an article which essentially stated that a number of people (some very historical, some very recent) were pedophiles, using a dubious self-published book as a source. polarscribe (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it entirely implies that it is voluntary. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the request.
 * By the way, thank you for coming here and bringing up your concerns in a level-headed, thoughtful and personal manner. The original BN thread very quickly degenerated into an accusatory slagfest, and I only wish you would have thought of this sooner, because it would have saved all of us a great deal of dissension and drama. I could have thought of it, too. polarscribe (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember you from the WP:CASH days. Yeah, there's been new features added to the software since 2005 - semi-protection, edit filters, rollback/autopatrolled/filemover/other flags, checkuser/oversight is different now, and new policies/processes like BLP, DRN, etc. I'm not sure how much you've kept up on. --Rschen7754 06:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was quite up on most of that stuff in my day - didn't leave until 2008. I was heavily into BLP patrol and OTRS, both of which probably contributed to my flameout. When all you see of this place is the worst, most godawful stuff...
 * I remember you as well - glad to see the road pages are still rockin'. polarscribe (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hope you stick around, regardless of your adminship status. We merged all the state highway WikiProjects into WP:USRD, and things have gone pretty smoothly the last few years. --Rschen7754 09:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, my admin status will be around one way or the other at the end of the day, unless someone seriously wants to try and drag a four-year-old flameout into ArbCom. I'm willing to step back for a bit, but not step down. polarscribe (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be an option, but, ArbCom will not / normally / accept a case without a previous RfC/U. It is not up to you to decide if you will get the tools back, but the bureaucrats. For example, if someone came back after 4 years and became an admin, and caused chaos, the tools should not be restored. If you act correctly in the period where you don't have the tools, they will most likely be restored. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how it works. See the voluntary removal policy. "Administrators who stepped down in good standing (that is, not in controversial circumstances) may request at any time that their administrator status be restored by a bureaucrat, provided the bureaucrat is satisfied that the account's security has not been compromised in the meantime." It is not discretionary. If, on the other hand, I step down "under a cloud," then I do not have that right and would have to be resysopped through the usual community processes. Hence, the desire for a clear statement that my request is voluntary and in good standing. Otherwise, I am not going to request a desysop because RFA is a disaster zone. polarscribe (talk) 10:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be the best option then. It would allow the community to !vote on a new RfA, to see if they still believe you need the tools, or can have them. RfA is not a disaster zone, and it shows me how you believe that you probably will not have a chance of getting the tools back if you go to RfA again. Anyway, congrats on possibly losing the "most prolific editor on wikipedia" . Thine Antique Pen (talk) 10:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * And of course there has to be more drama, someone making the insinuation that it's not "voluntary." Le sigh. Can't win for losing. polarscribe (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thine, I'm not asking for Polar to throw in the towel or go for a new RFA. I'm asking you to edit for us for a month without admin privileges and regain our trust as an editor and that you are well adjusted to the site changes. If at the end of the month you have behaved and edited perfectly fine then simply refile and Bisanz or Nihon can simply restore your rights. Personally I'm not bothered with what you did 4 years ago, but I am highly concerned with the context in which you returned and it didn't seem for the right reasons. Your return to wikipedia was brought about by you edit warring as an IP, if you can't see that the context in which you returned was so wrong for an admin who has abandoned this website for 4 years. I'm an honest person, and I'd be willing to arrange something with Bisanz or whoever for you to undergo a trial period and restore your full rights. I understand you are suspicious on this and think that by allowing yourself to undergo a trial you're somehow permanently giving up your rights but I would personally see to it that you are and put the recent events behind us, I promise that.

I can't return to wikipedia in this situation, it seems so wrong to me what happened that I fear that in the future policies will always override pure common sense which could potentially threaten content. I am so disgusted with the way this has been handled you're not likely to see a return from me, I can't edit on a website which acts like this and I can't continue editing with this on my mind knowing that you edit warred as an IP and then sneakily got your admin rights in the wake of a conflict, having essentially long left wikipedia for good. By not doing this you are implying that you feel that you having admin tools is more important than having me as an editor on this website. Its the website's choice, they either see to it that you undergo a month's trial in good faith that you will be restored your full privilages at the end of the month or you lose me permanently. After all I've done for this website if this simply can not be addressed then why should I ever bother giving so much to a community which clearly has no respect for me and where a stupid "policy" completely devoid of common sense is more important that people producing mass content. If I'm truly valued here as an editor by the community and they want me to return then this needs to be seen to at least something is done about this situation.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Dr Blofeld, until you can demonstrate that you can use your own tools properly (i.e. not using rollback in a content dispute with this very same editor), I don't think you're in any position to complain when others are given tools in accordance with Wikipedia community consensus on the manner. Unless you're also willing to self-request that your own rollback rights be removed before even asking anything like this of Polarscribe, you're asking others what you are not willing to do yourself, and that's unrealistic and inappropriate. - SudoGhost 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine then, feel free to remove my own rollback privilages.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should have to give up your rollback tool. We all make mistakes in the heat of the moment. We're trying to build a bridge here, not burn down the foundations. polarscribe (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have self-imposed a ban on my own use of administrative tools for a period of one month. I may request rollback, review, etc. through the usual means. polarscribe (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, you've kept your word on that one. But its now up to the bureaucrats to ensure this sort of thing doesn't happen again and that they show more consideration and common sense on things like this. Its sad that they take everything as written in stone and feel pressured to act by "policies" which obviously not everybody agrees on but in the sort of environment wikipedia has become I honestly can't blame them for doing so, otherwise face a grilling. Its also sad that people who have long standing grudges and vendettas turn out at situations like this and relish it. I'm of the opinion "consensus" at times is slowing the development of wikipedia both as a resource and in the running of the website as so many intelligent proposals are made yet people will always oppose on anything that is ever supported and almost always results in no consensus. I've made many proposals for reforms which I know would improve the website but the reaction is always mixed and almost always ends up being a waste of. I wish you the best of luck editing here, you'll need it. Right now I've lost faith in how things are enacted on wikipedia and don't feel comfortable continuing to contribute here.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  19:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the admin who helped me out when I started here also later retired, after the birth of his first child, under a different name, although I don't know if he formally told that many people of his return. I do know that he did not request admin rights to be restored on his return under another name however. I don't know all the details involved here, but I do think that perhaps Nihonjoe might have himself perhaps have requested some sort of such "probation" before restoration of tools. By saying that, I am in no way saying that there was anything improper in the restoration, but rather that, like others have said before, policies and guidelines have changed substantially since you left, and it would not be impossible for you to perhaps not note that in some of your admin actions. The circumstances here are such that I can perhaps wish you might have returned to other articles first, and perhaps not in the rather unusual way you did. And I do think, strictly on a rather procedural level, the alleged "cloud" under which you apparently left might be addressed in some way before the return of the bit. Not doing so could easily set a bad precedent for other cases in the future, where perhaps? a "retirement" might be made for the purposes of avoiding dealing with a problem, with the editor to return later. Given that four years is the length of a US Presidential term, not making some sort of review might set circumstances up for election-period editors with bad faith to abuse the system before one close election, only to return after the next one to perhaps continue in like fashion. I don't think you'd do that, but I do think party operatives might think of exploiting the precedent this might set. Maybe. Having said all that, it is good to see retired editors return. I just wish the circumstances were different, and the return of one editor didn't seem to directly lead to the loss of another. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)