User talk:NE Ent
On assuming good faith
I really don't think you're helping BlueSalix by offering your theory that "The AGF explanation is someone spoofed some emails as coming from Cwobeel" on his page, but I don't want to further embarrass the guy by refuting it in place, so I'll comment on it here, on this (at this moment) hopefully less high profile page. Please feel free to remove it when read.
How exactly would spoofed e-mails, that BlueSalix thought were from Cwobeel, have prevented him from forwarding the e-mails, as he was so urgently requested to do, full headers and all, like, oh, I don't know, on 14 June? You will be aware of the timeline, since I'm sure you will have read the ANI thread carefully before opining, and won't need diffs (it's all in that thread). This is how it goes: on 13 June, BlueSalix accused Cwobeel of having sent three abusive e-mails containing "a string of vitriol". On 14 June there were vehement and upset denials from Cwobeel and requests from various people to forward the e-mails to Dennis Brown, to myself, or to ArbCom, and on that date there were also various evasions from BlueSalix (to Cwobeels pleas, BlueSalix said for example that he won't "empower power games" or "go off chasing down a wild conspiracy theory", was refusing to have the e-mails investigated in the interest of deescalation, etc). On 15 June, BS posted further, fairly copiously, before falling silent. In other words, there was a lot of evasion and foot-shuffling from BS before he went on break. Are you saying AGF is a suicide pact after all?
And did you see the mysterious "redacted" header BlueSalix provided on ANI where the sender was given as Mosfetfaser, not Cwobeel? Perhaps BlueSalix originally misread "Mosfetfaser" as "Cwobeel"? Might that be the AGF explanation? (When I asked about it, I only got more handwaving.)
Your interventions now fit with your original suggestion in June that Cwobeel had no business asking for the matter to be investigated and it was up to BlueSalix to ask for an investigation if he wanted to. (I thought at the time, and I still think, that's the kind of thing that can easily make users (=Cwobeel) leave in bitterness.) So in a way I'm not surprised at your demeanour now, it's consistent between June and August. But in another way I'm pretty surprised altogether. Also I think you are if anything delaying closure for the unfortunate BlueSalix further. If it wasn't for that consideration (closure for BS, and to stop people talking about him, so he can put it behind him) I'd quite like for you to start a user RFC abut my capricious and arbitrary use of admin tools. Admin abuse is a serious matter. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC).
- At the risk of breaking User:NE Ent/rules#5 (Thou shall not suck up to admins, it's unseemly) and User:NE Ent/rules#7 (The first rule of Ent rules-- you don't talk about Ent rules) -- because User:NE Ent/rules#2 is Emerson's "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- I've long considered you one of the better admins because
- You're a visionary, pioneer who helped grow WP before most folks had heard of it, having been around long enough (2004) to be personally insulted by The Founder.
- You generally seem to "get" the big picture, rather than getting bogged down in technical minutiae.
- When too many editors/admins sit around yak-yak-yaking, you're willing to just make a decision and take action 
- As Lady Catherine would surely attest -- if I wasn't obviously below her social class -- you can maintain a sense of humor.
Obviously, that doesn't preclude me from speaking up when I think you're wrong about a particular situation.
I'm not particularly interested in helping BlueSalix per se. (In fact, at this point I think it's likely he's just gone, and I'm not terribly hopeful we can get him back.) What I can about is the encyclopedia -- and with only 130,082 active editors and 4,593,782 articles, we need all the help we can get, and for me, that means accepting all the imperfect humans who get angry, react too quickly, misinterpret other editors poorly phrased statements what have you. Because if we get rid of all the imperfect humans, who's left to edit? For at least a couple years I've been using the factoid there are a quarter million  articles tagged as totally unreferenced -- and the depressing part is in the time I've been using that link, the number (with rounding) hasn't changed.
To some of the specifics you address. First of all, you lost me at "urgently." This is just a website, a hobby for many of us. ISIS in the mideast is urgent, Boko Harum in Nigeria is urgent, the milliseconds after some moron adult hands a 9-year girl an Uzi -- those things are urgent. Having expended a chunk of my life with 2,400 ANI, 1,000 WQA, and 700 AN edits , I've become so convinced that a whole amount of drama could have been avoided if folks just slowed down I made it a key part of my user name (Ent -- who famously hated hasty). If an editor like BlueSalix or anyone else goes off wiki in the midst of drama -- as long as it's real and they're not socking -- I think they should be rewarded. I'll tell you straight up that if I don't periodically real-life for a decent chunk of time (e.g. a 7 edit July) -- I'd have turned into one of those ranters who inevitably gets indef'ed.
Your timeline above is correct but, I'm going to argue, incomplete. Specifically, on 13 June another admin closed the discussion. While ANI discussions are much like the knife fight in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ("There's no rules in a knife fight."), there's at least a meme when a thread is closed and not reverted, the matter is considered resolved. I'm not saying you were wrong to follow up, but that more patience would have been of greater benefit for the encyclopedia. The fiction that blocks are non-punitive, harmless actions is simply that, a fiction. Blocks are permanent black marks on an editor, continually dragged up whenever an editor gets in a future scuffle.
My only goal here has been to resolve a situation -- an incredibly stupid situation regarding the imperfect changing of an imperfect phrasing -- with two active editors (C and BSalix) ending with two active editors. It's possible you're correct that a failure to keep BSalix accountable could lead to the loss of C, but that's not obvious to me. Certainly I can't agree there was any urgency -- Blue was not taunting C or pursuing the debate or anything like that.
Finally, I don't know whether you mean "admin abuse" in the sense of admin's abusing editors, or admin's being abused by editors, but it doesn't matter -- I don't consider it a serious matter, particularly as both versions are (unfortunately) mundanely common on en-wp. (Having been previously employed in a couple authority roles, I learned long ago that "abuse" directed towards me was almost never really about me, it was about the role I was occupying.) Over-the-top abuse, or misuse of admin tools, of course, needs to be addressed, but that hasn't occurred here. While I think your admin action wasn't the best, for reasons I've tried to explain as best I can, it certain falls well within the envelope of discretion rightfully allowed admins, so there will be no AN / ANI / RFCU / arbcom actions initiated by me. The only thing I might have done is try to persuade another admin to unblock BSalix, but at this point I don't think it's worth burning either my limited wiki-time or political capital pursuing the matter any further. (If BlueSalix resumes editing, I might change my mind, of course). NE Ent 17:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)