Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:09, 1 March 2010

Archives

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

Re:adminship

You removed my vandel report

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

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

You clearly have not investigated thoroughly. My concern is in regards to him deleting information and later updating unflattering image; two topics that have been discussed since the 11 of December, most recently since the 9th of January. He has not replied to my comments/questions on the deletion of information in the talk page. You should really go to the page and read the events dating back to the 9th of this month. He made continual removals of valid information without justification or acknolwedgment. Posting decision on vandelism is a serious job and you should not take it lightly. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neon Sky (talk • contribs)

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

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

Ok, I will do that next time he dodges diaolgue. I also wanted to add this link to the one you posted on my page so that it will be in abslute context. ] Thanks for taking the time and for the advise. --Neon Sky (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of user 63.116.149.147

Thanks for sorting that. Incidentally, your user page makes for interesting, and painfully true reading. You should nominate it for 'featured page status': people won't be buying a pig in a poke then when they consider getting involved with wikipedia, so to speak. Cheers Fortnum (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Your comments on Wiki Politics

I am new to Wiki; as I'm sure you noticed. I just read your user page and found myself completely relating to your daughter. My third day using Wiki, I stepped into a big pile of Wiki politics and almost didn't come back. I asked an admin for "mentoring" only to receive an adament denial that any politics take place here. I chuckled and looked the other way. At that point, I decided to keep to myself and as in life, choose my battles carefully. Life is complicated enough, but moreso, I didn't want to divert from what attracted me Wiki: the just plain enjoyment I get from researching, writing and editing. I contemplated the life of the admin, and it takes a special personality to do just that, administer (mental image of a desk and an ankle cuffs). Admins are important. Yes, some, just as in the real world, abuse power. Just like some "authors" are idiots. I have decided to stick around for the love of the creativity. That said, I'm glad there are personalities out there willing to do the admin work.

Moreso than sharing this with you, I was itching to get it out there somehow. To say, "Yes, there are politics in Wiki. Hell yes." Sorry to your page for being the stage, thank you to your page for being the stage... if that makes sense. Now, closure. Moving on. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Avatar Critical reception rewrite

Trusilver, thanks for your contribution on Avatar. Following some editors' suggestions, I have proposed a restructured Critical reception section for discussion here, hoping to try and accommodate a deeper and more balanced coverage of the film internationally. Please have a look. I hope we can resolve this impasse and work out something everybody or most will be happy with. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

LustyRoars

Hi. User:LustyRoars continues to make disruptive edits. Isn't it time for a block? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed this editor's contributions, and he does occasionally make substantive edits. Because of this, I'm not going to block them outright as a vandalism-only account. They have made no further edits after the last warning, so I'm just going to add the user to my watchlist and se what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 01:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts for the Ikonboard Page

Hi, Trusilver! I noticed the reverts being made on the Ikonboard page on the recent changes page, and I looked up the Ikonboard website. Apparently, the publisher is listed as "Geek Layer Web Services Inc". It can be found here at the bottom of the page.

Thanks!

L337*P4wn 04:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been reading up on it for the last five minutes. Thanks for letting me know :) Trusilver 04:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

It looks like the user you banned for the various editing of the Ikonboard article is back using another IP. At a glance this IP has been used in the past for editing/blanking its talk page. Brollachan (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed that. I have him on my watchlist for WP:COI issues. I'm going to wait a while and see what happens. Thanks for letting me know. Trusilver 22:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request from User talk:71.48.23.4

Howdy Trusilver, hope you're well. :) This IP is requesting an unblock, and as you're the blocking admin, I'm giving you a heads-up. Thanks! GlassCobra 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey GC :) I just came across your name earlier today and was meaning to stop by your talk page and say hello. Hope you are doing good :) Trusilver 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight thanks

Thanks for becoming involved in GoRight's unblock. I have no comment on the conditions; however, the I believe the indefinite nature of this block has gone on too long. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't even notice this comment until looking back over the one beneath it. Thank you, I would (of course) like to see GoRight reach a point where he is more constructive in his edits. I feel the same was as you do, though. I have watched this whole thing unfolding and have become increasingly concerned at how long it has been stretching out, I came to the conclusion that a little nudge from an uninvolved party was the only thing that would make it move forward. Trusilver 02:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GoRight's unblock conditions

While I admire the courage it takes to wade into GoRight's talk page, I'm concerned that the unblock conditions you have proposed do not directly address the concerns raised by 2over0 (or by Viridae, who also indefinitely blocked GoRight in January). In the list of problematic diffs offered by 2over0 (User talk:GoRight#Blocked (2)), none comes from article space. Most are on talk and – especially – Misplaced Pages-space pages. Particularly problematic are the cases where GoRight inserts himself into disputes involving other editors.

I'm going to openly acknowledge the elephant in the room — if GoRight's ability to involve himself in others' disputes remains, he will spend the bulk of his on-wiki time picking fights with WMC, Enric Naval, Tony Sidaway, and a few others with whom he has had historical and/or ongoing difficulties. He sees himself as a crusader (and now martyr) for the 'rights' of a downtrodden minority, with all the benefits and pitfalls such an attitude entails. His talk page comments recently have essentially acknowledged that point. (Here, self-drawn parallel to Rosa Parks(!) here are a couple of samples.)

Leaving him free to argue and insult on talk pages, and to involve himself into others' disputes (as long as he maintains a veneer of civility) pretty much takes us back to where we started. The fact that he wore down 2over0's incredible patience with endless argument and refusal to just get the point is telling — as is the fact that no other administrator wanted to get involved with the three separate {unblock} requests that he's had up on his talk page since 2over0 blocked him originally (links on request; he's had {unblock} templates up for a total of more than two weeks with no takers). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done a pretty extensive review of GoRight's edits and talk page over the last year, I have a pretty clear picture of the issue. As far as I'm concerned, this is a viable middle ground. As far as I'm concerned, this is a last chance. I won't hesistate to block him again if he doesn't live up to his end of the bargain, but at the same time, neither do I find unnecessary baiting or using his editing restrictions as a weapon against him to be acceptable. We will see how things go. Trusilver 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no harm in a civil attempts to "crusade". However, GoRight should be cautioned to stay focused on productive content outcomes in both a "crusade" and articles themselves. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I also think the unblock conditions miss the point; if anything allowing him to edit the articles and be banned from the talk pages would make more sense, bau that is not possible. Sole Soul (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. And besides, as I pointed out elsewhere, there will not likely be any more chances if he fails to adhere to these restrictions. I worded it the way I did because my first concern is always for the encyclopedia itself, the associated talk pages are always secondary to that. The bad part about topic bans is that they rarely change anything unless they are indefinite, they certainly don't change the attitude of the person being topic banned. They only way there will be a permanent solution to this issue is if GoRight changes the way he does business with other people, or if he's banned. Let's try the first one more time before moving on to the second. Trusilver 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be remiss were I not to note that the 'public' face of Misplaced Pages depends on the successful, collegial functioning of all those pages behind the scenes. Without functioning talk pages, and without editors who can work together (at least in some way, on some level), we can't build that high-quality encyclopedia that we want to deliver. No single editor is indispensable to any one article or to any one topic — but one editor can make a topic area utterly miserable, and can erode the participation, contributions, and benefits of others through attrition. GoRight has been blocked multiple times for a pattern of disruptive behaviour; as administrators we are expected to strike a balance between the chance of 'rehabilitating' individual editors and letting the rest of Misplaced Pages function effectively.

All that said, a suitable limitation on GoRight's participation in dispute resolution – limiting him to his own disputes only, instead of those of others – shouldn't harm our articles. Even if you don't think that a topic ban is appropriate, I believe it would be in the best interests of the project (and of GoRight, though I suspect he might disagree with me) to encourage him to focus only on his own fights right now, and not those of other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet more quibbling for you. I'd like For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is covered under the climate change article probation. clarified. My assumption is that "covered" means "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed)" per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation; it doesn't mean just pages tagged with the {{Community article probation|main page=Climate change|] for full information and to review the decision}} header. Is that correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I meant any article that falls under the Climate change probation. I will change that on GoRight's talk page. Trusilver 20:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Thank you for taking an interest in this. I am sorry for all the verbiage you had to way through to review the situation since the block. I think that GoRight genuinely understands the goal of the project, and genuinely wants to help in achieving creation of a free and respected encyclopedia. I do not think that I have successfully communicated why their contributions have not been furthering that goal. I think that your proposed conditions miss some of their disruptive behaviour, but I am grateful for your pledge to follow their edits. If I may, I would like a day to consider. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. And I agree that there is some of the behavior that isn't being addressed, but I also feel that if we want to rehabilitate (I hate that word, but I can't think of another right now) this user, we need to meet at neutral ground and give them the ability to modify their own behavior, rather than restrict every aspect of it. Do I think it's going to work? Maybe. Maybe not. But either way, I think that it's important to give them one last chance before a final community ban. But don't feel pressured either way, the good part about being uninvolved is that I have no problem with saying "screw it" if you think this is a bad idea. Trusilver 00:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, rather than "rehabilitate" I suggest reading Restorative justice. In my opinion Misplaced Pages is ideal for this because no one owns anything and it can be changed. Kindly, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2/0, forgive me if I find this all a bit humorous, but nothing GR did was worse than what WMC and others have been doing for years, yet here we are, 3 weeks later, and you are still sitting on this block. Now another admin comes along and offers to assume responsibility, and you're asking for more time for "consideration"? While you are stalling "considering", perhaps you can also consider why you're approach to GR is so much more drastic than your approach to other aggressive editors. Why is "civil POV pushing" sanctionable while "uncivil, conescending POV pushing" is excused? I've politely posed these questions on your talk that you've yet to answer.

In any case, it's been 3 weeks now -- it's time to quit the stalling on GR's situation and let someone else handle it. ATren (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks Trusilver! I've been trying to work out how to give 168.8.212.133 a warning about vandalism, but youi've already blocked them from editing! Thank you! Regards Orionsbelter (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The conditions of the topic ban.

I don't mean to quibble and I won't press the issue, but I believe that you have altered the terms of the topic ban from what I had actually agreed to. Please review the language that I actually agreed to and if you feel a mistake has been made take whatever corrective action you feel is appropriate.

The language in question as I agreed to it was:

"For three months, this user will make no edits to any article that is related to the climate change article probation. The user may participate on the talk pages during this time provided they adhere to the civility probation above and are conscious to avoid disruption. Failure to comply with this will result in a warning then a full topic ban for the remainder of the three months as issued by an uninvolved admin."

If you feel the language you have recorded is more appropriate and feel it is important that the restriction be so modified I will still accept it but obviously I would prefer the original language.

--GoRight (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and of course modifying the language to accommodate WMC's concern over the scope is fine. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

NP, take your time. I just want to get things settled during this i dotting and t crossing period. --GoRight (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given it some thought, and I don't feel that there is a significant change in the language, only an amplification of what has already been covered. I added "broadly construed" more for you, so there is no misunderstanding about the idea that all climate change related articles are in the danger zone. Trusilver 03:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so we are agreed per the language which has been recorded at WP:RESTRICT and subsequently posted on my talk page. Thank you for your assistance in this matter and I'll do my best not to squander this last chance or to betray the good faith that has been placed in me by all those involved and Viridae before them. --GoRight (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Goright`s bail conditions

Hi, is goright allowed to work on or comment on a wip which will likely fall under the CC probation once it goes into mainspace? I was hoping to get his input but am worried that his unblock conditions prevent him from working on a work in progress? Thanks --mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A work in your own sandbox is just that. Seeing that it's not an article yet, there's no reason to expect any contention. Once it is moved to mainspace, that's a different story. I don't see any problem with it right now, though. Trusilver 09:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Participation at my RfA

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

Viking Age

Looks like your cleanup effort on the Viking Age went awry. I reverted to the version I think you were aiming for. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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

About that ANI thing

That was well done. I don't expect to be interacting with him at all for quite a while, and I'm even going to avoid looking at his edits for now. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Atama's closing of the complaint as not requiring admin intervention to supersedes yours. A user engaged in a dispute at a policy page cannot be allowed to trawl through an opponent's edit history and cherry-pick the perceived juiciest bits. If you feel differently, then by all means re-open and seek wider community input, please. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I really couldn't care less. But you may still consider yourself warned for civility. I don't give a damn about your dispute, I don't give a damn about problems anyone has with you, I don't give a damn about the articles you edit, I don't give a damn about a little incivility. (we all have bad days) I DO give a damn about blatant incivility and disruptiveness. 98% of the people on the project are fully capable of editing without being snarky, rude, nasty, etc. You go out of your way to push the envelope in that respect and I have no qualms whatsoever with blocking you if the situation requires.

Don't make the situation require it. (period/full stop) Trusilver 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. To anyone lurking on my talk page; that was not an invitation to come to me with every perceived bit of incivility that Tarc, or anyone else, is committing. If it inadvertently comes to my attention, fine, but otherwise... use appropriate channels.) Trusilver 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Well now, that was a bit rude, and not what I'd expect from someone entrusted with the admin bit. There has been no "blatant incivility and disruptiveness" on my part; a carefully-crafted laundry list presented by Mr. Barber does not a case make. Your page is now unwatched. Good day. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Your User page

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

If I did, I would protect it. I intentionally leave it unprotected to serve as something of a honeypot. I prefer vandals to hit my page rather than legitimate articles. Thank you for the offer, though. And thanks for the revert on my userpage. Trusilver 05:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking 71.100.31.227

Thanks for the block of that IP "71.100.31.227," although it's not the first one he(or she, if possible) has had. Have you actually seen this user's edit history? ----DanTD (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, which is why I blocked him for a week. We normally go on an escalating scale for blocks. My normal first block for a vandal is 31 hours, they get progressively longer from there. I would prefer more extreme measures, but they fail to achieve consensus. Trusilver 05:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support

Trusilver - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking 84.112.168.187

Thank you for blocking user 84.112.168.187. His obsession for toilet humor, among other forms of vandalism, are a nuisance for mature editors. His reaction makes me pessimistic, if his attitude will change after the 48 hour period. However, thanks. --Wikiwatchers (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You never can tell, but the good thing about blocks is that they only take a couple clicks to reapply. :) Trusilver 07:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on the block of Brews ohare

Hi, in relation to this, I am not confident that the block will have the required preventative effect if it is lifted. It appears from the history of his talk page that Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his friends believe him to be the target of a nefarious WP:CABAL, and continue to dispute both the validity and the necessity of the topic and namespace ban. Under these circumstances, I believe that lifting the block early would have the effect of making continued infringement (with the associated reports, blocks, drama and general timewasting) more likely. For this reason, I ask you not to lift the block. More generally, I believe that, in order for arbitration enforcement to be effective, administrators must be in a position to actually exercise the discretion given them by ArbCom, which is why it is a personal policy of me not to needlessly second-guess the enforcement actions of my fellow admins (see, for more detail, User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2010/February#Mooretwin). I'd appreciate it if my colleagues would extend the same courtesy to me. Regards,  Sandstein  07:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think that the block will have a preventative effect if it is lifted, do you feel that it will have a preventative effect once it has expired? And if not, why did you only put it for a week, and why not seek a community ban? I ask because I generally group blocked users into two catergories: Those who are net positives and those who are net negatives, the former should be given every opportunity to reach a point where they can "play nice" with the rest of the community in a way that maximizes their content contributions and minimizes their disruptions. The latter should be shown the door at the first opportunity. Which one is Brews? I'm not really sure, but I think that there's enough of a reason to assume some good faith here. If I saw a clear intent to be disruptive I wouldn't have anything to say about it, but I don't see such an intent, at least not on this occasion. I also have to disagree on one point: I think it is our duty to second-guess the enforcement actions of other admins, because the second we stop reviewing each other's decision, then the cabal really does exist. If you feel strongly that the length and circumstances of this block are justified, then I will not intervene, but in this occasion, I think the punishment is needlessly punitive. Trusilver 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure that the block will have a preventative effect once it has expired, of course, but it will almost certainly have less of a preventative effect if it is lifted, because lifting it may send the message that enough wikilawyering eventually pays off, and it may also weaken the authority of the arbitration process, which is intended to result in binding solutions.

I agree with the categorization you propose, and I also don't know which group of editors Brews ohare belongs to, being unfamiliar with his history, but I don't think it is relevant here: this is not a block for disruption. The edits of Brews ohare were not, in and of themselves, disruptive. But they were in violation of a ban, and therefore prohibited without regard to their merits, see WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. I applied a week-long block because that was the maximum block duration allowed under the relevant remedy. But in general, when faced with serial misconduct, I prefer to apply indefinite blocks, and then lift them as soon as the user credibly agrees not to misbehave again. I'd grant an unblock request of this sort at once, but instead all we get is denial and wikilawyering. Such conduct ought not to be rewarded.

I do too believe we ought to review each other's decisions, but we should observe proper deference to each other in doing so: I will undo another admin action only if it is indefensible and a clear violation of policy, but not in situations where reasonable people can disagree and I am simply holding a different opinion about how best to apply policy.

For these reasons, I continue to oppose any lifting of the block until we get an unblock request that follows the advice in WP:GAB.  Sandstein  09:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I have taken note of your unblock of Brews ohare. This unblock is not supported by clear, active and sustained community consensus, as required for any overturn of an arbitration enforcement action by the arbitration motion cited below. I ask you to reinstate the block with its original expiration date within six hours of receipt of this message (which I am also informing you of per e-mail). Should you not do so, I will request the Arbitration Committee to take the appropriate action. Thank you for your consideration,  Sandstein  17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that for the best preventative effect, Brews should have been warned, and then blocked severely if he continued namespace violations. What that does is say "hey, I'm going to assume good faith and think that you made an honest mistake, so I'll give you a chance to be personally responsible and fix it." I think that it's clear that Brews didn't know that he was acting in violation of the ban, and now he's just upset about being blocked as opposed to being empowered to fix his mistake and continue positive contributions elsewhere. Awickert (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

And that was precisely why I felt this unblock was so necessary. And Sandstein, you do whatever will make your evening more enjoyable. Trusilver 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of privilleges

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee.

In failing to comply with this motion, you've misused your administrative privilleges. Several reminders were made to this effect, but your failure to be receptive to these reminders suggests you are no longer fit to retain your position as an administrator. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver did the right thing. Perhaps we should think about limiting the authority of Arbcom a bit. Arbcom is necessary, but the automaticity of blocks that cannot be appealed and the absense of a real appeals process for topic bans is not ok. Brews latest appeal failed. Why? Because you had only one or two Arbcom members who pragmatically looked at his case and proposed some good ideas. Another thing is that the appeals process is not an independent review at all, it is more like some request for probation where on the basis of good behavior and saying sorry, you can get the topic ban relaxed. Now, I'm not against a probation system like that, but then why call that the "appeals process"? Count Iblis (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

VCMvocalist, the sad fact of the matter is that ARBCOM in allowing mockeries like what happened to Brews to happen is a clear example of your own unfitness for the tools. When in the blue fuck will ARBCOM come off their high horse and be willing to assume good faith? They are there to stop the disruption, not implicitly allow and encourage petty harassment, in essense try and show brews the door. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for returning Brews to the trenches, Trusilver. Though the overturn may be against the letter of the law, it was in the spirit of it: the initial block was IMO overly punitive in a gray area, and all discussion (which was nearly unanimously against the decision to block Brews) was squashed. Ncmvocalist, I sugguest that you start spending more time writing articles. Then maybe you'd understand why it's helpful to WP:AGF and not block a major content contributor for a whole week over a namespace violation. I'm unhappy with the way this was handled and with the flak that Trusilver is getting for his actions. If there is action taken against Truesilver, I will support him. And if this silliness continues and it comes down to a battle between those who administer and those who actually write an encyclopedia in which those who do the writing lose out, I will strongly protest or leave the project, and someone will have to find another person to do geology/geophysics featured article reviews. Awickert (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom was never designed to stifle intellectual discourse on the thinnest of premises. It was also not meant as a springboard on which persecutorial reports on Arbitration Enforcement to be used against editors in order to settle scores. Your eloquent, lucid and precise rationale for lifting the block has a clarity of vision that few Arbcom written decisions in recent memory possess. I think you should run for Arbcom because your lucid judgment is needed there as well as your great ideas. Please do not let the inevitable whining detract you. Dr.K. _πraxis 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Moreover you combine lucidity of thought with the courage of your convictions which you realise into principled actions. Your rationales are also so well written and clearly enunciated that are easily understood. I only !vote here when I am inspired by the candidate. In the next Arbcom elections, if you are a candidate, I will vote for you. Thank you for inspiring me. Dr.K. _πraxis 23:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that WP:IAR allows any Admin to violate the rule quoted by Ncmvocalist. The text of WP:IAR was never updated to restrict its application after that Arbcom decision to place itself above everything; it still says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.", it does not make any exceptions for any rules that Arbcom has made. Note that Arbcom cannot decide that WP:IAR doesn't apply to them, because WP:IAR itself would also apply to that very Arbcom decision. The only way would be to modify WP:IAR itself, which requires community consensus and that has not happened. Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar Worthy

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

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

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

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

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

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