User talk:Andrevan/ArchivedTalkHistory

☕ A@📧mail ☕ 🐣c🐣 😎 💀d💀 😎 ⭐b⭐ 🧮 🗄️ 🧹

⬅️ Previous Archive Page (#-1) ☕ 🗄️ ☕

Next Archive Page (#1) ➡️

🌳 🍀 🌳 🌿 🌳 🌱 🌳 🗄️ClueBot Detailed Index Archive #Andrevan/ArchivedTalkHistory🗄️ 🌳 🌱 🌳 🌿 🌳 🍀 🌳

Temporary insanity

If you came here to admonish me or ask me to resign I will ask that you grant me my plea of temporary insanity. I have been an admin since 2004 and I have been involved in disputes before. I have never abused my admin tools or trust of the community. All I have done was make arguments on talk pages. My arguments went off the rails, but that is not a high crime or a misdemeanor. I was ahead of the curve in 2004.[1] Folks told me I was crazy in 2004 to think that we could have a black president who was at that time just a junior senator from Illinois, a former state politician and community organizer, the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. Consider that I may know more than I let on. My intuition is not perfect. I am a human being. Andrevan@ 01:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Advanced permisssions of Andrevan

Given your repeated refusal to apparently even consider handing in any of your advanced permisssions, I’m afraid I’ve felt it necessary to request ArbCom look into the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Commenting on this, WP:ADMINCOND is also part of policy. Misuse of admin tools does not have to happen for a desysop to occur. For example, an admin consistently and flagrantly violating BLP can have their bit removed. I get the sense your particular case will hinge on how dimly arbcom members view your outing attempt. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Your block of Dewythiel at Freedom Caucus

Hi, if you don't mind I'd like some clarification about this block for 3RR. First, the warning on his talk is for 1RR, not 3RR. I'm wondering did you see the 1RR warnings on the Talk pages of the other 2 participants in the edit war: AlexanderLevian [2] and Neutrality [3]? I don't know if this new editor was afforded due process WP:BITE.

Second, after you blocked the editor, you reverted them at Freedom Caucus [4] to the "disputed" version. This version actually goes against the RFC consensus at the page. Did you see that I pointed that out in the 1RR notice to Dewythiel? Reverting an editor you just blocked gives an appearance of impropriety. And since you (1) did not start a discussion on talk and (2) your edit was against the RFC technically you violated Discretionary Sanctions. In my humble opinion. I'm not saying that this is a bad block. But I would like to know how all of this came about. – Lionel^(talk) 00:50, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were topic banned from Trump related articles broadly construed?[5] PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, you didn't use the standard block template. This account is 2 days old. How are they supposed to request an unblock since you didn't use the standard template? – Lionel^(talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A glance at the editing restriction on that page says "Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions." It appears that Dewythiel was reverting to enforce this consensus Talk:Freedom_Caucus#RFC:_far-right. The editors who should have been blocked are AlexanderLevian and Neutrality for 1RR violation of DS. I am now of the opinion that this was a bad block.– Lionel^(talk) 01:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

When you’re in a hole, stop digging. I’ve asked at ANI for a review of this block. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

How did they violate WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN:,@Beeblebrox:. I resigned. But look, this user was a sockpuppet. Funny, that...Andrevan@ 05:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Which proves...nothing about your actions toward them. Please move on, and don’t ping me again as I already have. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I won't ping you again - how quickly we went from reconcilatory to snippy? I didn't mean the ping at all in a negative way, and I'm sorry if it got on your nerves. But I think there's an important learning experience here, and not just for me. I'm not an admin anymore, I've resigned and admitted my mistakes. I screwed up blocking this user for 3RR, I miscounted a consecutive edit as a revert. Also, it was a topic ban violation. What I should have done was referred this user to checkuser. That doesn't mean this obviously disruptive user should have been unblocked. You can feel free to disagree; it doesn't matter. Just want to make this point in case anyone else is watching this. In the old days, we didn't dance around when it came to indefblocking obvious socks or POV pushers for edit warring. Andrevan@ 06:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

What evidence would you have given a checkuser that the account was a sock? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

See the thread Talk:Freedom Caucus#Populist? which is WP:IPSOCK and see the decline at User talk:Dewythiel#June 2018 2 Andrevan@ 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If you say so. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN,TonyBallioni, I'd like to hear a little more than that on this case. You've dealt with my antics more or less fairly. However, there's a point that my good faith block of this user was making. Far from being a "bad block," it was a very good block. My reasoning wasn't quite right, and I am sorry for that. But my intuition was sound. Andrevan@ 20:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to ping Dlohcierekim and Berean Hunter‎ to weigh in here. Andrevan@ 20:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Please link to a diff where you even hinted at the possibility the editor might be a sock prior to seeing the CU-block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a strange request. I didn't hint at anything in a diff. Remember, I just got in trouble for alleging an elaborate sock farm of POV pushers without having enough evidence? Andrevan@ 23:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not a strange request as you stated above you should have referred the user to a checkuser. To do so, you would've been required to provide evidence per WP:NOTFISHING or your request would have been declined. You failed to mention any such evidence when discussing the block. Editors, admins or otherwise, cannot simply go to a CU and say, "hey, check this editor out." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. That's why I didn't do that. Andrevan@ 23:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ll just speak to the new TBAN: I placed it because even though the content in question was Trump related, you could reasonably make the argument that you didn’t realize it and that your actions weren’t intentionally trying to break a TBAN. I have no opinion either way on that, but you’ve basically become the most controversial editor in AP2 overnight. Since you’d already been blocked twice on the Trump TBAN, I thought, and think, removing any possible room for misunderstanding in the future was in the best interest of the project. In terms of your block, while I think you could have made the argument you made in a case, it doesn’t really impact my thoughts that you taking a break from everything American politics related being in the best interest of the project right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi TonyBallioni, I think you are within your rights to broaden the TBAN. However, I respectfully disagree with your reasoning. I have not shown that I am unable to edit on any American politics topic from 1932 on. That would include everything from FDR to LBJ and beyond. I have only had problems editing on the Trump topic area specifically, and while the block of the sockpuppet above was a violation of the topic ban, it did not show a requirement to broaden said ban. Therefore, please restore NeilN's original TBAN. Andrevan@ 20:55, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

This was your second block in as many weeks for violating that ban on a page that wasn’t Trump related but with edits that were. I think that’s justification to make the AP2 topic area a bright line for you. If you want to appeal, I’ll copy it to AE or AN for you. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I do wish to appeal, because 1932 is an arbitrary cutoff, but further, the first block was for appealing on Jimbo's talk page and a technical violation but not an example of willful editing or article talk page edits, the second block was for blocking a sockpuppet that we're discussing now. I have consistently agreed to abide by the Trump ban as clearly Trump makes me incredibly angry and at some level, I can't think straight about him. But there's no reason to block from editing say, Bob Dole. Andrevan@ 21:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That’s fine. Just write your appeal below and let me know where you want it copied (AN or AE). TonyBallioni (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the preceding statement is a fine appeal, or you can just link to this discussion. Andrevan@ 21:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you plan on editing Bob Dole, Lyndon Johnson, or anything else in the next 3 months? I've considered requesting that AP2 be modified to post-2000 US politics, and if you have active plans to make those contributions, I'll make such a proposal at WP:ARCA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Andrevan@ 21:07, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if there's going to be a discussion at WP:AN that will comment on this topic, I'll wait to see the community's view before filing a request for amendment. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged to weigh in on the socking by Dewythiel. I can't discuss details about his IP socking publicly although non-CUs can. I did send that information to the Checkusers' mailing list about nine hours ago along with evidence that ties him to the two accounts that I posted in his unblock request. The email subject is "Dewythiel supplemental info". All stewards and checkusers including ArbCom members have access to that. If Dewythiel would like to know more about the evidence against him, he can give checkusers permission to discuss his IPs publicly. It may not matter now but I believe that your instincts about the user were probably right but you waded into the wrong area against your topic ban. My instincts tell me that these probably weren't this sock's only accounts but I don't know who the upstream master is.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Andrevan@ 22:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that that block had nothing to do with Andrevan's block, and that the CU case and block does not validate that first block. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Don't touch Donald Trump content! --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• NeilN, may I suggest converting the topic ban to an AP2 one in general. I've personally never been a fan of the "Trump bans", and think that they can lead to inadvertent violations and more conflict. The ArbCom case being an exception that should be granted, IMO. I was going to suggest this at ANI, but then it got dealt with, and I don't think discussing it there would have helped the situation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni: If you want to convert it, be my guest. Right now, I can scarcely believe what I had to do here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Finally an Admin actually blocked for making an objectively bad block. Will wonders never cease. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, he wasn't actually blocked for the bad block, so you'll have to keep waiting for the wonder. Natureium (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

There’s seems to be no end to the things youdon’t know, so just to clarify, your argument that you made a “procedural revert” is also complete nonsense. That’s not a thing. Every revert is an editorial action if it is not the undoing of blatant vandalism. I can’t believe this has to be explained to an admin and ‘crat.

I suspect this will once again fall on deaf ears, but please, just hand in all your advanced permissions. You clearly don’t care to take the time to learn to use them correctly and after this it is even more likely that you wil lose them anyway. Take the high road. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Before I get in trouble for my adminning, I do sometimes revert and mark it as an admin action. This is usually in lieu of blocking someone for violating consensus-required or WP:1RR (they get warned). I make darn sure I know what I'm doing, though. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, they claimed not to have even looked at it before reverting,[6] which somehow excuses it apparently. And they didn’t mark it or provide any reason at all in their edit summary, so it seems like another case of trying to justify after the fact. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that revert was bad for a number of reasons. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

In the old days, when an obvious POV pusher was blocked, their changes were reverted like simple vandalism. That is my mistake if policy has evolved on that. However, I believe that NeilN has used "procedural reverts" on a number of articles. Does that make him WP:INVOLVED? If not, what is the justification for that? Andrevan@ 20:42, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

New Arbitration Enforcement Topic Ban

You are topic banned for three months from from edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. The only exception to this is commenting at any potential ArbCom case or case request in which you are a named party. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, just as a personal note, I've stayed out of this as much as possible, and don't like doing it, but as I said to Neil, I think Trump bans are easy to make mistakes on, and I think this is a clearer bright line. I have no opinion on the case itself, but just wanted to avoid a potential for a third block here by making the restriction crystal clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Note before week-long block wikibreak

The community says I made a mistake. It seems that I did, if it was not actually 4 reverts, but 3, and an unwitting topic ban violation on top of that. I believe in listening to the community when it is telling me things. In this case, there doesn't seem to be much to clarify or discuss. Therefore, I will serve out this block and try not to make the same mistake again (I suppose, I may not have an opportunity to do so if I am desysopped). Andrevan@ 03:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if you stayed a long way away from all things Trump and Trump-related on Wikipedia for a very long time. Facebook and Twitter and countless other social media platforms are available for you to express your anonymous opinions. Go for it! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Jesus, why don't you just read the handwriting on the wall and resign? Arbcom and everyone else has so much other stuff to attend to than you wanting to hold on to your permissions when it's obvious a large part the community has lost trust in you. Think of the community, not of yourself, and I suspect that if you ever want to be an admin again, resigning with grace now will go a long way towards helping the community believe you can be trusted again. EEng 19:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

EEng is speaking wisely here. Trust is a precious commodity… — JFG ^talk 21:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Listen to EEng, JFG, and practically EVERYBODY. You can't force others to trust you, so your insistence on keeping your rarely-used tools is just digging your grave deeper. Hand them in and get this whole Arbcom case dropped. Really, if you keep insisting, you'll end up getting indeffed, and rightfully so. An admin with so poor judgement shouldn't be an admin, and then this whole futile and foolish process of self-defense just makes it plain you don't deserve to be here at all. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I have resigned largely because these comments, taken with some of the statements on arbcom and elsewhere, are basically a community WP:RECALL of my adminship. I never made myself formally open to recall because I figured I would be able to accurately judge the community response to my actions, and with this it went under. However, I've been making a number of important points throughout this process and I think those points need to be made. Andrevan@ 20:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Andrevan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. As you are currently blocked evidence or other information pertaining to the case should be sent to the Committee via e-mail. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Steward/bureaucrat, please remove my bits so the arbs can dismiss the case. Andrevan@ 00:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I've informed the bureaucrat's noticeboard about this; I'll let one of them contact the stewards. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You will need to request removal of the crat flag at Meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Removal_of_access. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Per your request, your sysop flag has been removed. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I’m guessing you probably don’t care to hear from me about this, but really, thank you for doing this. I know this has been unpleasant for you and I hope you’ll believe me when I say I wish I hadn’t felt it necessary to pursue it. I’m glad we can move on from this and I’ll happily leave you in peace. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
• Speaking as just an average, everyday editor, I can't tell you how much this changes my view of you, Andrevan. Instead of, "Well, here's another one of those bossy I'm-in-charge-ha!-ha! admins that gives the rest a bad name", I'm thinking, "He cares enough about the project to put its good before his pride. I hope I see him around the project doing good work." EEng 01:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Striking the above since he's now decided to waste community time after all, just in a different way – by appealing his block and topic ban. <sigh> EEng 23:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Good move. Now you can get on with contributing in non-controversial areas and proving your worth. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

They've already proved their worth beyond doubt; one of our sharpest, most independently minded editors with an allmost impossible mix of coolness & conscientiousness. We've lost one of the few admins who retained some of the freewheeling, inclusive, frontier spirit that used to make wikipedia such a fun place to hang out. A sad day. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow thank you FeydHuxtable Andrevan@ 18:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Good faith unblock suggestion

Hi NeilN, TonyBallioni and other administrators watching this page. I think Andrevan has (ultimately) taken the right path and has had his permissions removed. He has also gone the distance in ensuring that we don't waste time in a prolonged Arbcom case. I think after all his years of service, at this juncture, keeping the block on for one week seems only a punitive measure. There's no fear of disruption. He has understood the issue. It would be a good faith move to remove the block now – especially given the combination of the work he's done for Wikipedia combined with his current acceptance. What say? Lourdes 03:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

That's nice of you Lourdes, but not really necessary. All the best. Andrevan@ 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for misuse of admin tools, he was blocked for violating a topic ban. Resigning permissions isn't related to that issue. Natureium (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lourdes, the block wasn’t mine, so I’ll leave NeilN to comment on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan arbitration motion proposed

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to dismiss the Andrevan arbitration case. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Andrevan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Have resigned adminship, weeklong block is punitive. Andrevan@ 21:05, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Declined per consensus at AN. SQL^{Query me!} 01:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Okay, do you want me to also place this at AN. Sorry, I just noticed this? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes please thanks! Andrevan@ 21:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Copied [7]. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• I have closed your request. SQL^{Query me!} 01:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Arbitration_Enforcement_Appeals_by_Andrevan. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Note about appeals (please copy or diff to AN if anyone wishes)

If the community believes that I am likely to be disruptive, even having resigned my advanced permissions, it is within the community's rights to overturn my block or TBAN appeals. I believe I have shown I am thoughtful, deliberative, and reasonable when it comes to these disputes and discussions. My goal is not to disrupt or to push political positions. As I'm sure I've said at other times, I've been here since 2003 and I stand by the vast majority of my editing history and decisions made. I believe the 1932 TBAN is overly broad, and that the block is unnecessarily punitive given how cooperative I am. Anyone is free to disagree, but I believe some folks are forgetting to AGF, especially given that I've just resigned under a cloud and submitted to community pressure. Andrevan@ 22:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Jbh ^Talk 23:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Really, truly, honestly, take your lumps. You're a few days into the block, and when it's over there's a big wide Wikiworld of stuff out there you can edit. Do that and you can appeal the topic ban in 6 months or whatever. EEng 23:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

EEng, I don't know you nor have we edited together that I'm aware of, but I am within my rights to appeal. I'm not wasting community time. You can go edit somewhere else or do something else. I'm still blocked, so I can't. I am entitled to due process, especially after my long history of volunteering here. I've stated that the block inadvertently violated the topic ban, but it was otherwise a good block of an obviously disruptive user. The community can say that the expanded topic ban and/or the week-long block are unnecessary if it wishes. Or not, but I don't have to agree with you or "take my lumps." I volunteer here because I legitimately believe Wikipedia is an important product for humanity and the world. Andrevan@ 23:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There was about 24 hours there where you seemed to get the clue but apparently that bright moment's passed. EEng 23:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it bizarre how quickly some can go from praising me for doing the right thing, to claiming that I still don't get it or am being disruptive. I have never once said the Trump topic ban is unjustified. Andrevan@ 23:43, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You may recall my once mentioning about handwriting on the wall and so on [8]. EEng 23:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan, nobody is claiming that you are still being disruptive. Many, myself included, believe that you would be disruptive if you weren't blocked. This is based upon the fact of you being disruptive during your topic ban, leading to you being blocked.

I think that the fact that you still don't get it is self evident. Recently you wrote "I have resigned largely because these comments, taken with some of the statements on arbcom and elsewhere, are basically a community WP:RECALL of my adminship. I never made myself formally open to recall..."[9] You know fully well that involuntary community recalls have been rejected multiple times. You were in the middle of a Arbcom desysopping and resigned under a cloud when it became obvious that the result was going to go against you. Not the same thing at all.

It is time to face the truth. You are not going to edit anywhere except your talk page until the week is over, It simply is not going to happen. You are not going to be allowed to to edit about post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, for the next three months. You have exhausted all appeals. The only thing any further comments can possibly accomplish is an extension if the block, an extension of the topic ban, and/or your talk page access being revoked.

Walk away. Don't reply to this. Don't reply to anything. Don't log on to Wikipedia for the rest of the week. When you come back, clear your talk page, do good work on non-political pages and silently delete any comments about this anyone posts to your talk page. Don't stand just this side of the line you cannot cross with your toes over the line. Stay a mile back from the line. After the three months are over, stay away voluntarily for another three months (anyone else would have received a 6-month topic ban) then carefully craft an appeal that shows that you understand what you did wrong and highlighting the fact that you just proved yourself by quietly staying out of politics for three extra months without being forced to do so.

Do all of that and your appeal will sail through. Do all of that and I will become a staunch advocate of lifting all restrictions from you.

Again, don't respond. Just walk away. It is over. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't need me or anyone else, it will all work out in the end. I still maintain that throughout this whole affair, I said a number of important and true things. It's against policy and good judgment to opine about possible undisclosed COIs without hard evidence; I got carried away, and swept up in the very real intrigue. As for the future, I have no imminent desire to edit American politics articles. However, I hope that the cool heads and great minds of Wikipedia will remember that Mr. Daniel Plainview and Dewythiel were blocked as right-wing POV pushing socks. For all of my mistakes, a closer look at what I was actually on about should be instructive, and I have seen that others are already paying close attention. I can rest easy knowing that I have blazed a trail, albeit a crazy trail, for others to evaluate. The news today shows that "active measures" and "meddling" are continuing, it's not a kooky conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia is a battleground for many bad actors. Andrevan@ 22:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry (but not surprised) to hear that you rejected my advice above by responding, but it is of course your choice to make. Be aware that I have received multiple thanks (both through the usual system and by email) thanking me for the above and telling me what good advice it was and that I have received zero criticisms for posting it. I am unwatching this page now.

"It is better to give than to receive. Especially advice." --Mark Twain

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but it isn't helpful. It just comes across as grandstanding. "Walk away." Who are you, Scar from the Lion King? I edit on Wikipedia because I enjoy it, and I believe in the mission. I really don't care if I can edit political pages or not. Andrevan@ 23:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're hard to help. EEng 00:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You, too, where did you even come from? Just leave me be. I'll wait a few years before I even want to look at a Trump article. Andrevan@ 00:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. Let us take a moment to look at this from an 'in-universe' perspective — your previous behavior and wild accusations serve to decreases the chance, should there be actual bad actors, that anyone will pay attention to anyone raising the issue i.e. you have 'poisoned-the-well' for legitimate reporting because such concerns are linked with your poor behavior in most editors' minds.

Second, and this is serious, where there are active measures in play there are counter-intelligence officers, at a minimum, observing events and interactions. By making accusations against specific editors, especially with you having been an administrator and bureaucrat and therefore having intrinsic initial credibility (I say 'initial' because they would need to check you out as part of basic due-diligence) , you have brought those people to the attention of those officers. That is hideously irresponsible unless you have high quality evidence. If you have such evidence then contact the WMF and/or pass it along to your local security service. If you are not confident enough in your information to do that then do not talk about other people being spies on the bloody Internet.

Leaving the 'in-universe' point of view and re-entering the real world. All that is obvious to me just from watching Spooks. You did do more than that before jumping into the pool… right? Anyway, if you think someone is an 'agent' go to WP:COIN and treat them like any other paid editor. I doubt that will result in anyone placing {{paid|employer= FSB| client= GOP| article= The Cheeto Stalin}}. I would laugh for a month if it did though.

In all seriousness though, you did not "blazed a trail…". You acted in an inappropriate and undisciplined manner which served no purpose other than to discredit your views; Give credence to the the "other side's" negative claims about their opponents'… clearheadedness; And, possibly, waste some allied security services' time until they re-assessed your credibility. Please do not think you accomplished anything positive, you did not. If you can accept that – unreservedly – then you may be able to learn something and do better later. If not… well, if not, I hope you do nothing which negatively effects anyone. Jbh ^Talk 00:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Andrevan case dismissed

Because Andrevan (talk · contribs) has resigned as an administrator and a bureaucrat, this case is dismissed. Andrevan may not regain either the administrator or bureaucrat permission without passing a new request for adminship and/or bureaucratship.

Passed 12 to 0 on 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Denial of appeal of topic ban under AP2

Andrevan, I have closed/denied the appeal of your topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Arbitration Enforcement Appeals by Andrevan ([10]).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Sorry to see your resignation and the circumstances that precipitated it. Thank you for your service to the project as an admin and bureaucrat over the years.
Wishing you all the best, WJBscribe (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Will, hope all is well. I know the bureaucrats are in good hands if you are still around here. Andrevan@ 22:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Don't really know what happened, or whether it was justified or not, but you've always struck me as a good egg. Sorry this happened. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, likewise I've always known you to be a good egg. All the best. Andrevan@ 22:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic ban violation?. Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy Macon, please just withdraw that. It's completely unnecessary. Has there been something in the water recently? EEng 00:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Oy gevalt. Andrevan@ 00:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)