User talk:Trusilver/archive10

Anna Anderson now at WP:AN
This is a courtesy note informing you that an issue with which you have been involved is now being discussed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard. (I mentioned your name, but only as you had past involvement with some of the issues regarding this dispute, not in connection with any wrongdoing on your part.) Alexius  Horatius  04:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Malar (Forgotten Realms)


The article Malar (Forgotten Realms) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * non-notable - no third party sourcing

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  04:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this is a little outdated but, uh... why the hell are you telling me about this? To the best of my knowledge, I've never even looked at this article before. Trusilver  19:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For this bit of house keeping. I appreciate all your efforts on the recent changes page as well. Keep up the good work  Tide  rolls  02:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for the quick vandalism reverts. cheers :) Trusilver  02:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I was hoping you made it out! I even tried not to leave any notes because I didn't want you to get drawn back in to this nuthouse. Oh well. Too late now! :) I hope all is well with you. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * How could you sleep while our beds are burning... And keeping track of which way the water swirls when you flush can get very confusing. Not mention the back trouble that comes with riding around on a wallaby. So it's probably good your back home. I just hope you stashed some of your dough over there, as the American peso is headed south. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

How's the food over there? I have a friend who's thinking of moving down under. Did you try some barramundi and vegemite sandwiches? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Happy Holidays Tru. I hope all is well with you. Keep it real and stay out of trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

take another look before you threaten me with a block
I removed obvious US bias from the article in question - I took it to the talk page, where I saw other editors comments regarding the blatant US bias. Please don't assume that I am a vandal just because I use an IP instead of an account. Seriously, have a look at the article and see if what I did was vandalism and worthy of you threatening me with a block - also if you are going to give "take it to the talk page" as an edit summary, you might want to 1.check if I have actually use the talk page (I have) and 2. use the talk page yourself.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Next time you blank entire blocks of content how about doing something as revolutionary as maybe... explaining in your edit summary that it was per the talk page. (which it really wasn't the agreement to remove the content seemed to be made between you and... well, you. But that's beside the point) When you are editing from an IP and doing something that is going to set off red flags to anyone watching, it's not a bad idea to go far out of your way to let everyone know what you are doing. Trusilver  08:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I was rude. That was uncalled for on my part. I don't think I deserved a block threat, but I have come to expect it when editing with an IP and of course it is my choice to use an IP instead of registering an account. I guess, I should try to get some outside input before making major changes. thanks for the reply and once again, please excuse my tone in the initial message here. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll remove the warnings. Just keep in mind that depending on the time of the day, there's anywhere from a few to dozens of people with Huggle consoles open watching changes as they are happening, things like large blocks of content being removed trigger red flags which bring it to all of our attentions. When you are doing something like this, be sure to give detailed reasons. You had good intentions, the twenty or so I hit before and after you didn't. :) Have a good evening.  Trusilver  09:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be a good idea for me to go near that article again for a while, or I am likely to find myself the subject of a 3RR report. But can you give me an opinion, please? In general when an article like that has what seems to be a US bias and also is rather POV (the article could be renamed "ATVs in the US are dangerous" in its current state) is the normal action to remove the offending section? It all seems correctly cited, but considering the length of the article it is total overkill. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, I would see if you can find a way to simply trim the section down. It DOES look like undue weight is being given to information that's only applicable in the US. Perhaps there's a way to cut the amount of information there down? Trusilver  09:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course I can't ask for immunity from being blocked or anything, but I can ask for your opinion again - I have edited that article three times in the last hour - all three edits were removing the same content - if I were to trim the article right now, do you think that would be likely to result in an ANI report and block? My feeling is that it would. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I didn't notice your comment last night. I guess the point is pretty moot now, but I don't think it would be a big deal. I certainly wouldn't consider it a 3RR violation. Trusilver  19:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the history of that article and found that due to vandalism a large amount of stuff was removed, I have put the removed items back - this does not change the POV or US Bias of the article, but it makes it less of an issue as now it does not make up the majority of the article. I am awaiting responses on the talk page to see if people object to having some things removed. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Colonel Angus
You twice reverted a small edit I made to the Cristopher Walken page. I provided an edit summary the second time as you requested, but you reverted it again and that time implied my edit was vandalism. I found it odd that you changed your reason. Anyway, I brought it up on that article's discussion page. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.75.231 (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikilinking should be used to direct a word or phrase to an appropriate article only when it directly relates to article being linked. While the idea of the double entendre is interesting, it is not a direct relation to what you are linking to. If you feel that the information is extremely relevant to the article (I believe it's not, but I won't make a judgment call on that as far as the content of that article goes) then a very brief explanation with a possible link within it would be acceptable.  Trusilver  09:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's cool. Thank you very much for clearing that up. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.75.231 (talk) 09:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ray's RfA
Hmm, thanks for the description of my oppose as "petty crap". Personally, I don't believe that ignoring WP:N and WP:RS in order to push a POV is something that a potential admin should be doing, but obviously your mileage may vary :) Black Kite
 * You're welcome! Have a good day! Trusilver  19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
As you had expressed concern that perhaps I was failing to AGF enough regarding a certain editor, I am sure you will be relieved to find out that as I suspected, he was an SPA, COI, POV-pusher - in fact, a sock of Schlafly, whose COI, POV pushing activities have earned him several blocks. It seems I was not failing to AGF enough; I was AGFing a bit too much, as I thought he was merely a meatpuppet, not a sockpuppet. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message. Trying my best to have fun and to accomplish some meaningful improvements around here. Take care. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Cirque4.jpg
File:Cirque4.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:A Cirque du Soleil clown at the Mirage Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Cirque5.jpg is now available as Commons:File:An acrobat performing in the contortion act of Cirque du Soleil's Nouvelle Expérience, 1994.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello there
Hi, just wanted to drop by to thank you for your comment in Ironholds' recent RfA. Yours was obviously the straw that broke the camel's back (as mentioned in his withdrawal statement). So here's a token of my gratitude, feel free to remove or revert, I don't much care. Aditya Ex Machina 04:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely welcome! I will display this barnstar proudly! I understand that you are probably a product of the "self esteem" movement of the last thirty years or so, so this probably falls on deaf ears, but not everyone is born with the same abilities. When your parents were happily telling you that you can be anything you want to be, they were really lying to you. The skills and abilities that were bestowed upon you are quite different than the ones bestowed upon me, and the ones I have are far different from the ones that the next guy has, and so on, and so on. Ironholds has many admirable skills, and he is capable of a great many functions that I feel he would excel at... but adminship is not one of them. If you felt that I was being uncivil, then I certainly apologize... If you wanted me to say how I really feel, then by all means, let me explain to you. Ironholds is by all means the candidate out of the last 12 months that I feel the most strongly about opposing. He takes a mind-boggling amount of joy in creating and perpetuating bureaucracy, and if there is any situation that has somehow managed to NOT become overly cumbersome and bureaucratic over the last five years or so, Ironholds is waiting there with a shovel to fix that oversight. We have far, far too many people on the project like this already, and rarely does such a person improve when given the mop, it's almost always the exact opposite. If I had one wish on the subject, it's that Ironholds would leave projectspace and not come back. He should go back to writing, doing what he has already proven he can do to tremendous success. I don't say that with malice, I say that because in the long run, he will have a better sense of accomplishment from that than he will ever get as an admin. I wouldn't wish adminship on anyone, it's not the lolipop that so many people think it is.


 * I have long since graduated from the political bullshit-speak that too many people around here feel the need to use. I am being frank and honest - Ironholds is the last person that should be an admin. Half because he is more valuable elsewhere, half because he is intent on perpetuating a system that is counterproductive to the main reason we are all here... to build an encyclopedia.  Trusilver  06:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perpetuating bureaucracy? How, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll answer that question on one condition. I have no interest in discussing anything with you if all you intend to do with it is go on a rampage of cyber-martyrdom explaining how you do everything right and despite constant feedback to the contrary (of which, in your defense, not all of it is just) that you are potentially the greatest gift to the admin roster ever. (That's not to suggest you have a tendency to do just that, but it's human nature to project criticism rather than suck it up and do a real self-examination) However, if you are asking the question as an interest in a totally honest (and painfully frank) appraisal of your abilities, I would be more than happy to. But ONLY on that condition, because otherwise it's just a waste of both of our time. Trusilver  09:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those things crossed my mind; I'm just interested how I can be said to perpetuate a bureaucracy. I don't think I do through my actions, but we're all fallible; I've probably missed something crucial. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I will send you an email tomorrow. Not because anything I have to say isn't public knowledge, but just because I'd rather the club I use to beat you over the head with not be used by other people to beat you over the head with. But in the mean time, I'm about two hours past when I should have gone to sleep. I do see you puttering around improving articles tonight, it's good to see. It's only my opinion, and unfortunately not shared by all, but I think correcting one typo in the encyclopedia is more valuable than six hours of time discussing the minutia of policy, or ramping up noticeboard drama. Trusilver  09:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for being involved. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what prompted that, but thank you very much and have a great evening :) Trusilver  03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Profoundly honored (Tru-perfection)

 * re - The Socratic Barnstar.

Profoundly honored. Perfect beyond words [You know me. LoL].

I will be smiling with radiant light surrounding me for some time to come ... generating many iterations and variations from strangers of: "Whyfore art thou smiling, sir?" And I will tell them of Trusilver's bestowal. (Too much? :-) (Just right.) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. And it may be arrogant of me to say so, but I think it's the most correctly applied Socratic Barnstar ever. Trusilver  21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * True and false. LoL (For the false part do a rhetorical analysis of Socrates speech at his trial ... which resulted in more voting for death than for guilty (I would tend to have given a different speech if my own patootie was on the line rather than, e.g., CoM)&mdash; for the true part, hmmm, looks like pretty much what I did, too, in this case. (Smells like siteban, yes?) SO: TRUE! :-) P.S. My father was an Army pilot ... very lucky ... once in Vietnam a copter on the right and a copter on the left both were taken out ... and a large bullet hit the pilot's seat armor my father was sitting on ... the bullet got half way through and hung ... with the tip near my dad's balls. Lucky guy. Hail pilots! Hail honor. Bless you for your words today, and your service for us all. -- Proofreader77 (interact)  02:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I flew KC-10's and KC-135's. I've only been shot at once that I am aware of, and it was shortly after takeoff. We were usually at an altitude that put us out of reach from what served as Iraqi air defense. Trusilver  04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just thinking how wonderful it is to talk on Wikipedia ... where you can usually link to what you're talking about. Delightful to be able to just click and see what you flew (Thanks! Dad was obviously flying a Huey ... My only personal story was my father stuck me in a flight suit one day on a very small Army base ... and took me up in a Beaver ... and I found this tube and funnel stuck on the wall, and thought it was something to talk into. Dad explained that my lips should not be there. LoL That completes my military flight experience. :-) Again, bless you for all. I am having a truly miraculous time right now ... and you lifted it another notch. Salute. (Even if I don't have a right &mdash; but kissing a latrine tube should earn one exemption to the rules. LoL) P.S. I remember dad also flew Mohawks ... I had a very expensively molded solid plastic one of those once upon a time... Proofreader77 (interact)  12:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signatories
Well, no one can argue you don't keep impressive company. It's taken ages to get anyone onboard at my Signature Page. I guess people are getting choosey about what they sign on to these days? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 movie)
Trusilver,

Following suggestions by some other editors, I slightly modified the statement about Hindu concerns over Avatar title that you had previously supported. May I ask you if your support still holds with the update. I know it's grown by two extra lines, but it reads more notable and objective now. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the talk page. Thank you for the heads up. Trusilver  04:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I have quoted google hits as a possible gauge of notability. Please have a look if you have time. As I wrote there, I would be happy to go back to the two-liner that you previously supported, if it helps break the deadlock. Cinosaur (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi article?
Hey Trusilver,

Na'vi was a new article that was recently made and I'm not sure if this should be proposed for merge or deletion with either the main article or the daughter article (Fictional universe in Avatar). It simply restates for the most part what is in the daughter article anyway. I was wondering what you thought about it. Thanks. DrNegative (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it should be merged with the parent article with a redirect. There is very, very little sourceable information on the Na'vi at this point, as the fictional universe expands, I can see a point where there might be reason to have a separate article. But unless the parent gets too big, I don't see any point yet in tearing it apart. Trusilver  06:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Titanic (1997 film)
Trusilver, would you not mind commenting in the above linked discussion? You are experienced on GA and FA status issues, and another opinion on this matter is needed. I need more direction on what to do about the Cast section. Flyer22 (talk) 08:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You caught me on my way to bed, but I will take a look at it in the morning :) Trusilver  08:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Always appreciate when someone tells me I am being talked about. Ikip 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks for the heads up. I already had a couple people let me know about it, and Lara herself sent an email letting me know about it. I still haven't read it, I just filed it away under my "I couldn't give a shit" file. (damn that thing fills up so quick!) Some people are in no position to be critical about anyone, anywhere. Trusilver  01:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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[1]. You should really go to the page and read the events dating back to the 9th of this month. He made continual removals of valid information without justification or acknolwedgment. Posting decision on vandelism is a serious job and you should not take it lightly. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Sky (talk • contribs)


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

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


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

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! Glass  Cobra  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), none comes from article space. Most are on talk and – especially – Wikipedia-space pages. Particularly problematic are the cases where GoRight inserts himself into disputes involving other editors.

I'm going to openly acknowledge the elephant in the room &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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 Wikipedia depends on the successful, collegial functioning of all those pages behind the scenes. Without functioning talk pages, and without editors who can work together (at least in some way, on some level), we can't build that high-quality encyclopedia that we want to deliver.  No single editor is indispensable to any one article or to any one topic &mdash; but one editor can make a topic area utterly miserable, and can erode the participation, contributions, and benefits of others through attrition.  GoRight has been blocked multiple times for a pattern of disruptive behaviour; as administrators we are expected to strike a balance between the chance of 'rehabilitating' individual editors and letting the rest of Wikipedia function effectively.
 * All that said, a suitable limitation on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution – limiting him to his own disputes only, instead of those of others – shouldn't harm our articles. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is appropriate, I believe it would be in the best interests of the project (and of GoRight, though I suspect he might disagree with me) to encourage him to focus only on his own fights right now, and not those of other editors.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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 General sanctions/Climate change probation; it doesn't mean just pages tagged with the 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 Wikipedia is ideal for this because no one owns anything and it can be changed.  Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

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
User: - 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 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). 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. 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. λogos 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
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_arbitration_enforcement_activity 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. λogos 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. λogos 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. λogos 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 Wikipedia, ignore it.", it does not make any exceptions for any rules that Arbcom has made. Note that Arbcom cannot decide that WP:IAR doesn't apply to them, because WP:IAR itself would also apply to that very Arbcom decision. The only way would be to modify WP:IAR itself, which requires community consensus and that has not happened. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the unblock and on the state of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia has today: The tyranny of a ruling aristocracy that justifies its actions by the letter of the law, while completely ignoring the spirit of the law. We joke about the big and scary admin cabal, but the truth is that the cabal really DOES exist- it exists because we allow it to exist. It exists because when we see an admin decision that was clearly wrong, we do nothing. I'm guilty of it too, for this one time that I did what I should of (and what many others should have) there have been countless others that I saw and did nothing about it because I didn't want to deal with the hassle.

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

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

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 412 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 412 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 412 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 412 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 Wikipedia, we coddle the new comers and treat good faith expert contributers like crap. I'm not even saying Sandstein was trying to abuse his powers, I am saying he may have got this one wrong....If this was a clear cut issue there wouldn't be several people including admin concerned with thus block. At that point it became about following a mindless procedure that didn't really apply in this case. If Trusilver reverses his action and brews serves the last 12 hours what point does this serve? What disruption are we looking to prevent? Blocks are to prevent disruption, show me how this disrupted the pedia?  Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 412 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. λogos 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 Wikipedia's principles ahead of bureaucratic nonsense and letting a gigabyte or so worth of policies do our thinking for us, something that I feel that Sandstein most definitely did. Administrators simply must not be able to use an Arbcom sanction as an end run around other wikipedia policies and the virtue of common sense. If I have to lose my bit to push the statement that we cannot and must not have a system where one administrator who takes ten minutes (and that's being pretty damn generous) reviewing a decision can arbitrarily bind everyone elses hands from reversing a bad and destructive decision, then I'm more than willing to do it. Looking at Sandstein's edit history, he arrived at his decision in only a handful of minutes, I arrived at mine after four days. This has already taken up too much of my time, I understand that you all are trying to keep me from running off the edge of a cliff, but I'm not blind, I really do see it. I'm sorry but I have other things to do tonight, I really have nothing else to add. Joshua, Durova, SirFozzie, thank you very much for your concern, it really does mean a lot to me. Trusilver 04:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 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 412 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. λogos 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)
 * 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 412 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. λogos 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 412 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Durova! Anytime you go for a second RfA count me in. Dr.K. λogos 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. λogos 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 412 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. λogos 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. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 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 412 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. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 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. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis  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 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,  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. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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): Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. One spurious AN complaint, related to same: Administrators' noticeboard.

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)