Hosta

Admins: If I have erred in one of my admin actions, or my rationale for the action no longer applies, please don't hesitate to reverse it. I have no objection to my actions being reversed, as long you leave me a polite note explaining what you did and why. Thanks.

Reasons not to trust ArbCom (latest in the series)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop#Motion to Recuse

Once again, ArbCom decides to act in its own political interest rather than that of the Community. (Note that they refuse to publish their verdict.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, the diffs presented there only increase my esteem for Salvio. I think his assessment is spot on. Denying that Lightbreather has been the subject of undeserved abuse would be like claiming the Earth is flat; but it is equally undeniable that she has a nasty habit of using enforcement mechanisms as a bludgeon against those with whom she disagrees, and that she has avoided serious scrutiny of her own actions by being superficially polite and in the way she frames things. That's not an opinion, that's a simple statement of fact. Salvio's lack of recusal does not reduce my confidence in ArbCom. Nor does GorillaWarfare's lack of recusal. I've seen no good reason presented for either to recuse.

As for WPPilot, if you don't trust ArbCom, do you trust me? I was the person who suggested on the functionaries' mailing list that the block be taken over by ArbCom. We discussed the possibility of an individual checkuser or oversighter taking over the block, but the collective opinion was that such an action would be ultra vires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Haweye, I have seen nothing from the Arbcom in a long time that did anything but facilitate their control and power. They do very little of use and in general do more to hold the project back. Any benefit in what they do is outdone by the negative. GorillaWarfare should absolutely have recused and the fact that she didn't pretty much solidified my lack of faith in the Arbcom process. Anyone who takes more than a cursory look at the data can see she is closely involved in the situation with Lightbreather. All you have to do is take a look at their interactions and especially in the GGTF email correspondence that is logged and linked on Wiki. Lightbreather is little more than an attention troll and needs to be banned but I have little faith that the Arbcom will do that because to make such a decision would make them look anti gender gap (especially after banning Carol) and its unlikely they will do that. If they do take action they almost definitely block and ban others to ensure that everything "seems" fair and shows no "favorites" in the decision. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You have interesting theories in some aspects Giraffasaurus, but yours are powerful words for someone with your record of participation on Wikipedia... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... a new editor:

(a) is already commenting (after being here a week) on the vast amount of "abuse" all arbs and admins impose on everyone

(b) has been slapping Wikiproject US tags on every conceivable talk page, and

(c) created his account 2-3 days after Kumioko's last attempt to get an unblock failed.

I wonder, who could it possibly be? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetings. Not sure if that comment was meant to be a compliment, complaint or a warning but...don't judge a book by its cover. I have a pessimistic view of editing and from what I have seen I expect for someone to block me for whatever justification they feel like at any time. It won't surprise me, in fact I expected to face accusations or insinuations eventually but until I actually get blocked I will edit positively and try and do as much as I can in that time. If you think I am that editor Floquenbeam, then perhaps you should unblock them and find out if I continue to edit or not. Since that is clearly an ad hominem attack upon me with no proof, links or justification, I would expect that statement to be supported in some way or an apology levied. But I suppose its easier just to block your way out of an apology, present them with profanity, assaults and rudeness such as you did here and others available on your contributions page. I'm not sure why you are allowed to continue to be an admin here but my sincere hope is that eventually the community will tire of your abusiveness and show you the door. Giraffasaurus (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Kumikoko sock blocked, per admission at the SPI page. HJ, sorry for all the notifications. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You do surprise me! </sarcasm> HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I do trust you, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is willing to take your word on WPPilot and leave it at that. I would trust ArbCom a whole lot more if they did not keep abusing that trust. Salvio has three editors saying that they think he should recuse (and a less than ringing endorsement from another). That should be a good enough reason to recuse. Recusal is not supposed to be a black mark; Arbs should be able to recuse without prejudice. There are plenty of Arbs available to hear the case, and they can get along fine without him. ArbCom says they had a discussion, but they held it in secret, and did not publish their reasoning. There was an implication that the decision was not unanimous, although in a recusal motion it has to be. There is no accountability, and no transparency. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Block of Demerararecords

Hi,

I'm doing a bit of digging around the Neil March article, and I can see one of the main contributors to that article is Demerararecords (talk · contribs). You blocked that user, but I can't see why you blocked them. I know it was a while ago, but do you have any recollection of why you did that?

Thanks!

—me_and 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It was a {{softerblock}}, which means the username represents a company. We require that accounts represent an individual, so we don't allow company names as usernames. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha. I thought it might be that, but I hadn't clocked that the {{softerblock}} made it explicit.

In that case you might want to take a look at some of the other folk involved around that article, Hornetmuziq (talk · contribs) (Hornetmuziq Press is the name of the music publisher owned by March) and Soundspositive (talk · contribs) (who seem to be this group).

(The reason I'm looking at this is they're the only users commenting on the article deletion discussion; they're all single-purpose accounts, Soundspositive only started editing after the deletion nomination (I suspect having been canvassed off-wiki), and I'm wondering if Hornetmuziq is a sock of Demerararecords, given both brands are apparently owned by March himself.)

Of course, if you want me to do this properly via WP:SPI and WP:RFC/N/WP:UAA, let me know and I'll go through the formal channels.

Thanks,

—me_and 09:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I can make things easier for you. Demerara Records should be blocked because it is Neil March's record label and was only used to intervene in the debate about his page due to a misunderstanding of the Wiki rules about independence. Likewise I should also not be able to post on anything to do with Neil March since we publish his music. So if that means you need to block me too, that is fine. In future we will leave it to others of an independent status to contribute to Wikipedia.