User talk:Trusilver

Unless otherwise specified, I will respond to you on whichever page the conversation started on. If I left a message in a discussion page or on your user page, please respond to me there - I will return and read it there.

This user is a commercial airline pilot and as such is often unavailable for extended periods of time. If he does not get back to you immediately after you leave a message, don't take it personally. He's probably just busy and will respond to you as quickly as possible.

If you have an issue with a vandalism revert I have made, I'm very sorry. I'm not infallible and I will occasionally revert a good faith edit that appears to be vandalism. Leave me a message and I will review my action and reverse it if my assumption was false. And above all...smile and take a deep breath, we all make mistakes and we are both trying to work in the best interests of the project.

Brews is blocked again

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

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

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

Motion posted

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

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

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

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

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

I came to Wikipedia with a few goals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rouge admins vs. needless martyrdom

You know I think you were right: the block was excessive and consensus would have supported unblocking. You can be WP:ROUGE and get away with it but only if, when someone points out a seriously valid issue (i.e: if we don't respect arbcom enforcement we are pretty much doomed, so if it's wrong we should fix that not ignore it) then you really have to put your hands up and say OK, I did what I thought was right, and for the right reasons, but I can see I probably should have done things differently. I do know what being rouge means ([1]) and I lament the rise of the process wonk and the decline of doing it right because it's right, but this case is not one you can win and sometimes the reason you can't win is because you shouldn't. I think you can move away from the brink by taking a deep breath and making a suitable statement. Of course it may be that you want nothing to do with sysopping in a place where ArbCom reaches $DECISION, which is fine, but I suspect your problem is more with the sanction and there are better ways of fixing that I think. Anyway, just my $0.02. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar

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

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

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

Options

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

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

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

Short answer

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

Long answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do pledge to do my best, something that I made clear during my RFA. Ironically, it was to Coren [2]. I'd like to think that the long time that I sat on the unblock, as well as my very clear reasoning behind it, combined with my discussion with Sandstein beforehand, show that I wanted very much for the process to work correctly. I acted only when I felt the the number of failures prompted it. I doubt that anyone believes that I have or ever would unblock someone without understanding the gravity of situation, or that I would do such a thing needlessly or without a good reason. The problem there, I suppose, is the subjectivity of the words "needless" or "good reason". Well, we can't all think the same way... if we did, this whole encyclopedia building thing would be going a lot faster, wouldn't it? Trusilver 04:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Sorry

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

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

Per motions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

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

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

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or

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

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

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

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

Discuss this

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

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

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

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

I did everything short of demand that Arbcom take the mop away from me, so I'm not really surprised. I do, however, think that this block is going to have lasting ill effects that will hurt them far more than it hurts me. Either way, thank you very much, and thank you for giving me rollback and autoreview :) It saves me having to ask someone for them. Trusilver 06:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

My statement on the last couple weeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much :) Trusilver 06:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• "I wouldn't go near the mop again if I were paid handsomely to". That, my friend, saddens me more than this whole sorry fiasco ever will. AGK 00:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope that the vast amount of good work that I've done during the last few years keeps you from feeling you made a mistake in nominating me to begin with. Dealing with inept commanding officers was always one of my weak points. But still, I leave the admin work for people more tolerant of politics and bureaucracies; I would rather do the things that made me enjoy being here in the first place. The day that I can look in a mirror and ask myself "Would you have done anything different in the Brews Ohare block if you had it to do all over again?" and say "yes" is the day I will accept someone's nomination for another RfA. I don't anticipate that ever happening. Trusilver 06:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find article work is much more rewarding. :) Best, ceranthor 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

When the moment comes...

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

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

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

Thanks Brews. When I got home tonight, I saw what happened earlier today, so I know you can't respond to this, but you have my email address. :) Trusilver 06:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

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

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

Thanks

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You beat me quite a few times too! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job

I caught the jewelry store adding a link on Binda Group, then went to the user's page to start fixing the others, and lo and behold, you handled them all! Nice work, thanks. Bento00 (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. Yeah, I saw the same thing. Whenever I catch someone adding a spam link, I go back through their other edits to see how many more they have added. This guy looks like he was at it for a few days before getting caught. Trusilver 20:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Trusilver, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 319° 51' 15" NET 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that there are a lot under "reconfirmation".

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish to make you aware of the following.

While it may seem overly anal retentive to you and others, personally I prefer to have a single place where we keep track of the final wording of the restrictions that have been imposed on me and as we previously agreed that place would be WP:RESTRICT. Ncmvocalist has taken it upon himself/herself to do some refactoring which I consider to be unhelpful (not that I think that was their intent) and so I have undone the changes. If you feel that this was inappropriate just let me know and I will put their changes back in place.

See the following edits for the details:

• [3], [4], [5], [6].

I am not trying to be pointy here it is just that we have an agreement, it was put in place in an appropriate place, and I don't see any benefit to scattering things all over god's creation. Please ask Ncmvocalist to refrain from further refactoring of any sanctions that deal with me. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this and this, and I'm sorry that you were asked to review prior admin matters when you preferred to avoid them for a while. I hope I haven't been unclear in either of my messages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please address this and this and Ncmvocalist's refusal to honor my civil request. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to look into this more in the morning. I've been awake for 22 hours straight right now and am not thinking all that clearly, but just going over the differences I'm going to say just a few things. First, considering the amount of scrutiny your edits undergo, I think that Ncmvocalist is completely correct in his feeling that you should be consulting with me or with an uninvolved admin before making an edits that you feel would be seen by anyone as questionable. Second, while I don't think that you are intentionally disruptive, I want to caution you once again about returning to editing patterns that led to your original indefinite block. As far as the venue in which the restrictions are listed, I consider this to be much ado about nothing. There are legitimate things to argue about on this project, I don't think that this is one of them. Everyone just needs to assume a little good faith on the part of their fellow editors, there's no reason this needed to escalate beyond a few friendly inquiries on each other's talk pages. And Ncmvocalist, it's not a problem. Regardless of my feelings on doing admin work, I did agree to monitor this issue subject to the conditions of the unblock. I will continue with that until the restrictions are lifted or I can find an impartial admin to take the responsibility from me. Trusilver 09:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We have a prior history. He is aware of this and knows how his actions are likely to be interpreted. This begs the question of why is he touching anything to do with me at all? Even more importantly, why is he editing WP:RESTRICT at all? He is not an administrator, he had nothing whatsoever to do with these restrictions, he has no specific or special role there as far as I can tell, and his edits made no demonstrable difference beyond this disruption. So what is he doing messing around with people's editing restrictions? If the location where the restrictions are listed is unimportant in the grand scheme of things (i.e. this is much ado about nothing) then I respectfully request that they be restored to their original form as we agreed and as had been working fine until Ncmvocalist interfered. --GoRight (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

MoreWP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; it is not sinking in. Just for the record, GoRight's reference to "prior history" involves me proposing (and logging) a community sanction upon him as an uninvolved user, and him wikilawyering about it; now GoRight is trying hard to game the system again, so that I can no longer retain my "uninvolved" status with respect to him, or any other similar "victim" of restrictions/conditions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

For the record I was done, but alas, this account is not complete. User:Wizardman was the closing admin who called the consensus at 21:29, 15 August 2008 and closed the discussion at 23:08, 15 August 2008. I had always assumed from his closing remark that Wizardman had been the one to log the sanction which I never had any problem with, but I now see that it was, in fact, Ncmvocalist who added the entry to WP:RESTRICT here at 03:17, 14 August 2008. He had logged a sanction at WP:RESTRICT almost 2 full DAYS before the discussion was even closed by an administrator. Holy crap, says I.

Then to top it all off Wizardman had to cleanup after Ncmvocalist changed the wording of the sanction when he placed the community sanction page in my user space (see [7] and [8]), and I now see that he had done THAT at 03:20, 14 August 2008. Once the sanction had been enacted I have never challenged or violated it. It is simply a non-issue for me. You are familiar with the sanction you and BW imposed. It is the same story. Once the sanctions were well defined and logged I have not challenged or wikilawyered them at all. It is a non-issue.

My issue here is simply as it appears, I object to Ncmvocalist fussing around where he is not needed and stirring up trouble as this entire episode demonstrates. Period. End of problem. I don't object to having the sanctions logged, obviously, since I was the one that specifically asked that they be so logged (in the case of these most recent sanctions, I was too inexperienced back in 2008 to even know about WP:RESTRICT). No, my problem is with Ncmvocalist's behavior. --GoRight (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, rather than pointing out every single problem with GoRight's comment which might be exhaustive, I'll let you decide on what you'd like to know from me (if anything). I think it's reasonably evident that the real problem that is causing all this is GoRight's inability to stop beating a mangled carcass - even below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

In an effort to proactively put this entire issue to rest I have asked 2/0 to weigh in on whether he considered his block to be part of the Climate Change Probation, or not. See [9]. I don't care how he responds. If he says yes, then Ncmvocalist's changes are fine. If he says no, then I maintain that Ncmvocalist's moving the one sanction to the Climate Change Log should be undone. I don't care where in WP:RESTRICT things are actually logged, so if Ncmvocalist want's to break them up into two sections that is fine. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

2/0 has provided his input here. I leave it to you to interpret what it means in the context of the current discussion. At this point I just want to move on. You know my position and so I defer to your judgment on whether to address my issues, or not, as you see fit. If you require anything further of me on this topic please don't hesitate to ask. If you decide my actions here have risen to the level requiring corrective action on your part I assume that you will likewise let me know. Thanks for your time and attention in this matter. --GoRight (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been going over past edits for the last hour and a half on this. First, I reject the idea that the two of you have any "previous history". This is a case of circular reasoning that I have seen before... a editor (administrator or not) who is involved in community sanctions does not become "involved" just by virtue of engaging in discussion. If that were the case, I would be "involved" in the climate change disputes just because of working on GoRight's unblock, which would be ridiculous. Ncmvocalist comments in a lot of different areas that he's not directly involved in, but having an opinion about something does not automatically make one "involved". I agree completely with what 2/0 had to say on this - I don't see the need that GoRight's editing restrictions need to be placed in any specific place. He knows them, those that are likely to get in a dispute with him know them, and that pretty much makes the point moot, everything else is a waste of multiple editor's time. I placed the restrictions in WP:RESTRICT just because GoRight felt that they needed to be recorded somewhere. Fine, that's okay, but I don't feel that it was necessary or absolutely MUST have been recorded there. GoRight, I seriously think you would benefit from The Swiss Family Robinson option, It's something that I'm doing myself right now in a much more drastic way, and it has turned Wikipedia back into something I enjoy, rather than just masochistic drudgery. Trusilver 20:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would explain my position here further but I am cognizant of the following: (a) the point has become somewhat moot as I have now agreed to accept whatever you feel is the best course of action, and (b) belaboring the point any further will only work against me in the grand scheme of things. That having been said, I would like to close with one final clarification.

Your response suggests to me that you have a somewhat skewed perception of my actual position in all of this which leaves me somewhat uncomfortable. For example, I believe if you review my comments above (or in any of the diffs and conversations linked from here) I never claimed that Ncmvocalist was "involved" in the sense that it is used here on Wikipedia regarding dispute resolution processes. That was his invention, not mine, and I have no idea where he got that from. What I said was that we have a "prior history" as in we have crossed paths before and in a much less than congenial way. All of which is true and pertinent in this context, but your response seems to have focused on the misdirection to the Wikipedia meaning of "involved" rather than what I actually said. I accept that this is likely because I have not expressed myself clearly enough.

Ironically, none of that was even core to my primary objection which was, simply put, that there was no need for Ncmvocalist to involve himself at all in a process that was already working and needed no adjustment. That is true regardless of whether he was previously involved with me, or not.

But it is time to move on. I apologize for any indiscretions in this unfortunate sequence of events. --GoRight (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting back the right version on the Seven Wonders... article. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 07:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem :) Trusilver 08:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

What did I do? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude I answered a question very reasonably! Nothing at all was wrong with my edit! Point out which part of my edit that was vandalism! 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, now other people answered after me, so it can't be reverted. Happy now? >:( 24.189.90.68 (talk) 09:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with your edit, sorry about that. When reverting a few hundred incidents of vandalism a day, occasionally mistakes are made. Though please recognize the fact that I don't live in front of my computer; if I don't answer your question, it's far more likely that I'm simply not online, rather than ignoring you. Trusilver 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

So

Wait, so I wasn't suppose to comment on their editing habits in their editor review?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Make constructive comments? Sure. Make personal attacks? Um... no. Trusilver 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Which part of the comment is personal then?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What I was doing was reverting your inappropriate behavior. Being editing constructively or you will be blocked. Dusti^SPEAK!! 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what Dusti just said. Trusilver 22:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes no sense, I comment on a users edits in their edit review and that is inappropriate behavior which you say is a personal attack and you revert it?--Sinistrial (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit above the one you made. That was a reasonable, helpful and courteous comment. Now look at yours... yeah, you get the idea. The idea of editor review is to give positive feedback, not to bitch because you didn't like an edit that the individual made. Some of us here do vandalism patrolling, some of us write articles, some of us do disambiguation work, some of us take pictures, most of us do a combination of many tasks. That's something you need to come to terms with. Trusilver 02:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't point to any single edit, and the idea of an editor review is to give any feedback, good or bad. I think it's funny the criticism you reverted also applies to you, and by reverting it just proves it does. And that fact you can't justify the revert yourself just shows you that you don't understand what the difference between someone leaving a grumpy comment in an editor review and someone making a personal attack. I'm also going to strike out the warning you left me.--Sinistrial (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hah, sure :) Whatever makes your day more enjoyable. Considering that you have gotten yourself a half dozen warnings in the last two weeks, I don't anticipate you will be around long enough for me to take the time to argue with you. Have a good day. Trusilver 23:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, completely ignore what I said and comment on something completely unrelated. Translation:

Yes, you do have a point, but I won't admit it so instead I'll laugh at your talk page and hope you get blocked so you won't be able to prove me wrong anymore.

Great going bro.--Sinistrial (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

On how to address this type of harassment? --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of more: [10], [11] (note the edit summaries as well as the text itself). --GoRight (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not whining here. Ordinarily I can take it and can dish out as good as I receive but just now I seem to be having my hands tied in terms of being able to respond effectively since anything I do will be construed as being disruptive. If the admins (not you specifically but all admins in general) wish to tie my hands along these lines then they need to be willing to intervene to put a stop to this type of sniping. I fully expect it to continue and if it does I would normally wish to raise it any WP:AN or some other appropriate venue after a sufficient number of such snipes have been made to establish the pattern. Anyway, you wanted me to consult with you before doing anything so here's a heads up to a developing problem. --GoRight (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

[12]. --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

[13]. I understand that this is redundant but wanted to log it for completeness. --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

[14] especially in light of [15], [16], [17], and [18]. Note the edit summaries as well as the edits. --GoRight (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic that you should be here as I just dropped by to draw Trusilver's attention to your disruptive and pointy behaviour which has recently aggravated many of your fellow editors (here's half a dozen, then there's TenOfAllTrades and of course Ncmvocalist above, to name a few). Citing behavioural guidelines is not harassment, and when you jump between pages I'm watching to vote on a measure to remove admins immediately after the same admin called for you to be sanctioned, of course I'm going to say something (and that's not harassment either). Aiding and abetting User:Abd is not helping your case and the last thing he needs is atrocious wikilawyering (e.g. "the meanings of the words 'discussing any dispute' and/or 'comment about any conflict' are distinct and non-overlapping with the words 'participating in a dispute"). I strongly suggest that you follow the advice you've already been given above as your current behaviour is making editing tedious for yourself and others. -- samj _in^out 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, without making a judgment call on any of the disputes you are currently engaged in, I think that the very fact that you get in them so easily is a cause for concern. I can say with absolute certainty that the road you are traveling on at this moment will result in a community ban in a very short amount of time. That's not as much of a threat as it is a call on you to ponder your actions. Edits like this [19] in particular make me reconsider my previous belief that you really are able to peacefully work on the project with others. I have people talk to/about me the way that they do to you fairly frequently, but I don't see it as "harassment", but rather the opinions of those that disagree with me. I think that it would be in your best interests to avoid administrator noticeboards like the plague and stay away from all disputes that aren't specifically about you. There was some pretty vocal support around unblocking you, but I'm seeing that support evaporating quickly. Trusilver 02:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems he doesn't hear that, and my patience is not infinite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: [20]. When it was pointed out that this could be considered disruptive I immediately retracted it and collapsed it. I would have removed it entirely except others had already responded. What more could I do to be cooperative once the comment had already been made? I will refrain from making similar comments in similar contexts.

Regarding Ncmvocalist' response above, I wish to know if we are considered "involved", or not, in the normal Wikipedia sense. This seems a simple question. He seems to have argued above that we are not involved and you seem to have supported that view. He specifically advised me to take any issues I have with particular editors to their talk page as a first step, so I took his advice and asked a civil question regarding our status. He saw fit to ignore and then delete my inquiry. I would still like an formal answer to this question either from Ncmvocalist himself or from some neutral venue. What is the acceptable course for me to take in obtaining such a determination? I really don't care which way the answer comes back, I just want a firm answer that will stick. Why is this contentious at all? It is a simple question of fact. --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot, regarding my supposedly not "hearing" your comment above if you check the time stamp on my initial query it was made before your response which I had not even seen until just prior to my responding here. That makes it rather hard to have heard you. Just to keep the record straight and out in the open. --GoRight (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok GoRight, you're obviously still not getting it so I've got a simple, civil "question of fact" for you. My question is simply: When were your last substantive edits in main space?

You see I've just taken the liberty of scanning over your last 1,000 edits because you keep popping up but I realised I've never actually seen you edit an article. Sure enough, most of your edits appear to be in talk and project space - disrupting existing disputes, encouraging problematic editors, spraying talk pages with distracting requests like this one, making thinly veiled threats, proposing sanctions against other editors, telling people to mind their own business while refusing to do so yourself, ridiculing and annoying people, wikilawyering, etc. - and those that aren't tend to be minor reverts of vandalism (and warnings for same).

A response at your earliest convenience would be appreciated. I shouldn't think that this would require a great deal of effort to respond.[21] -- samj _in^out 23:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Your totally unprovoked and totally rehashed WP:BAIT is not accepted. Also, I am perfectly comfortable with my editing profile which is completely consistent with someone who is trying to seek consensus on controversial topics. More talk means less edits and less edit warring. Since my current sanctions went into effect I have been choosing to contribute to the project in the form of WP:RCP which is a perfectly acceptable WP:GNOME activity. Do you have something against the WP:GNOMEs on the project? Are you saying that they aren't worthy contributors to the project? --GoRight (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC) And no, obviously I am not claiming that I have never been in an edit war. Everyone has.

Thanks, that's what I thought. It's insightful that while you see yourself as "a wiki user who makes useful incremental edits without clamouring for attention", you see me as "disruptive, agenda-driven or disturbed". In the mean time I scanned your contributions right back to the start of the year (over 1,500 edits) and did not find a single substantive edit. Not even one. -- samj _in^out 01:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

More unprovoked WP:BAITing. Every edit I have ever made to an article on the encyclopedia was substantive in the sense that it improved the project. --GoRight (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Humility requires that I say "every edit" may be overstating it. Let's go with 98% +/- instead for the numerically obsessed.