Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I would like to know if Snowspinner will be up for punishment as well for his actions. Or will they only be considering me? Only considering the criticism—the words—and not the actions?

I also propose that there be no voting on this case until September at the earliest. This will give us all time to deliberate and prepare arguments without haste. If this is not accepted then I will not present evidence. Everyking 07:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Ceasefire, not punishment

I don't think anybody here is looking to see any sort of punitive or vindictive action against Everyking—nobody is looking for banning or desysopping, and everyone acknowledges that Everyking generally does excellent work at Wikipedia. This RFArb–hopefully–isn't about "punishment". Quite frankly, I think most editors would be quite happy to see a return to civility on WP:AN and its subpages. Achieving that with a minimum of red tape should be our goal here.

I have repeatedly encouraged Everyking to file an RfC on Snowspinner's itchy blocking finger, to no avail. (Diffs will be forthcoming). That is the generally-accepted method of reviewing an admin's actions where informal comment has broken down. He has not chosen to follow that route, and has instead continued to make rude remarks and demand desysoppings on WP:AN pages.

I suggest the following resolutions. I know I am perhaps putting the cart before the horse given how recently this RFArb was filed, but perhaps the involved parties could be saved all the effort of evidence gathering and jump to a ceasefire solution.

  1. Everyking is prohibited from stating that an admin should be desysopped (or any equivalent statement) on WP:AN and its subpages, or on any User talk page. He is free to comment on admin actions, subject to Part 2 of this resolution.
    • Exception. Everyking may make such remarks if they relate directly to a formal dispute resolution process (RfC or RFArb) to which the sysop in question is a party. Everyking is not restricted from filing such reports.
  2. Everyking is placed on personal attack and civility parole on WP:AN and its subpages, and on any User talk page. Constructive criticism is welcomed and encouraged on Wikipedia; insults and snide remarks are not.
  3. Enforcement. Any admin may block Everyking for a period of up to 12 hours for a violation of Part 1 or Part 2 of this resolution, with the exception of Snowspinner, TenOfAllTrades (and up to four(?) others, to be specified at Everyking's discretion) and the admin who has been criticized.

The exceptions in Part 3 are meant to deflect accusations of a cabal at work, and hopefully to reduce the risk of a block war. If EK believes that more than six editors are out to get him, then something is seriously wrong.

If Everyking would like to suggest appropriate restrictions on other editors' behaviour or modifications of the above proposals, I welcome his comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this is a great start, although I would make a couple of small changes:
  • Condense point one to say that EK may make statements about the desysopping of an administrator only on pages relating directly relating to a formal dispute resolution process (RfC or RFArb) to which the sysop in question is a party.
    • the purpose of this is to avoid the potential for loopholes and accusations of his exploiting them.
  • Add an exception that point one does not apply (but point 2 does) if he is the sysop in question.
    • this is to be explcitly fair. If another user were to propose his desysoping on WP:AN (for example), then I would not block him for responding, but I could see a huge debate about this arising (possibly resulting in EK being repeatedly blocked and unblocked).
  • Limit the paroles to 1 year from the date of closure of this case.
    • I don't think an indefinite parole is fair. If the restrictions haven't worked by that time I don't think they will and alternative measures should be considered.
  • The paroles apply to all pages and articles in all namespaces on the English Wikipedia, but blocking administrators should consider being more lenient for instances outside the Wikipedia and User: namespace.
    • Although EK's conduct is not an issue generally, I think don't think there should be to possibility of loopholes as above. However, I think that encouraging blocking admins to be more lenient where there hasn't previously been a problem is only fair.
  • The maximum block shoudl be 24 hours, but durations of over 12 hours should only be used for repeated or particularly serious transgressions.
    • This could probably be worded better, but the intention is to allow a range of punishments so that if he makes one borderline remark he is not blocked for as long as a thundering desysopping demand. 24 hours allows a greater range than 12 hours.
I am happy to become an exception in part 3 (not to be counted in the four nominated by EK) if EK and/or the abritrators feel this apropriate. Thryduulf 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
By and large I'd agree with Thryduulf. (My suggestions were definitely meant to be rough essays, rather than etched in stone.) I left the gap in point 1 to allow Everyking to do things like announce on WP:AN that he has filed an RfC or RFArb–or to note that one has been filed–in response to an admin action. I quite agree with a limited duration for paroles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand and agree with your remark about anouncing an RfC/RfAr, and it wasn't something I'd thought of. I think my wording would allow a statement like "I've filed an RfC against user:NastyAdministrator at in response to their actions at ...." but not "I've filed an RfC calling for user:NastyAdministrator to be desysopped.", which I see no harm in (in fact I think that the first wording would be better for everybody to use"). Thryduulf 20:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in making myself a fourth rate editor. If I'm going to become one I'd rather let somebody else do it to me, so at least I don't have myself to blame. If Snowspinner wants to cut a deal he will have to make concessions equivalent to my own concessions. And he must give me assurance that he will stick to the deal, which he did not do last time. Everyking 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any of this making you any less of an editor than you currently are - and outside of comments on administrator actions I think you are amoung the best. To my mind this is designed as an attempt to not impact your article editing, or the vandal fighting you do. You also some of your points at WP:AN and WP:AN/I are very good (you come accross to me as having particularly good judgment regarding inapropriate usernames for example) and it would be a shame to looe these because of some personal attacks. If there is anything you particularly have issue with - e.g. if you think it will impact on you in a way we haven't thoguht of, then say. If we don't know about it we can't do anything about it. Thryduulf 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
For the moment, my original two points at the top of the page need to be addressed by the arbitrators. In any case, as for what Ten proposed, point 1 is agreeable, I'm not sure about points 2 and 3. I don't like empowering people to block me. I already have "mentors" (who have been taking it easy, since I haven't given them anything to do); why not just empower one of those mentors to watch my AN/I comments? Everyking 20:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have noted this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Mentorship, asking for the opinions and input of Everyking's mentors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  1. We're not in any rush to adjudicate your case any faster than the rest (however, bear in mind that we do not adjudicate cases strictly according to the order they were accepted)
  2. If you choose not to present a defense, you do so only to your deteriment
  3. We don't like ultimatums.

Have a nice day. →Raul654 20:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

This shows you about how much "civility" the Arbitrators actually have, despite all their fastidious demands from ordinary users. Everyking 20:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Everyking, when we're trying to reach a reasonable solution revolving around your alleged attacks and gross lapses of civility, snide remarks to the ArbCom aren't helpful. Given that you did deliver an ultimatum, how much civility are you expecting in return? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree that I've had any "gross lapses of civility". Minor lapses, OK. And actually I thought what I was asking was pretty reasonable. Raul didn't even respond to the part about Snowspinner. Everyking 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ultimatum" is very far from an emotionally neutral word for characterising what Everyking said. I think it rather unfair of Raul and Ten to characterise it that way. Giving EK credit for the minor skill of spotting a poor user name is just a device. It makes it then appear fair to have a go at him becuase of his essential contribution on the admin pages: He identifies the unreasonable actions of several admins, Snowspinner chief amonst them. Who else is doing so? There are many admins, some of them act unreasonably. This needs to be ideintified. Why do I say "essential"? Without Everyking no one else would be doing this enough. Paul Beardsell 11:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

For my part at least, I do not object to EK's highlighting of unreasonable actions - this needs doing. My beef is more with the way this is done - you do not need to make personal attacks and there is no excuse for not being civil. Also there is a general consensus on what actions are acceptable for an admin and what aren't, but at times it feels to me as though EK doesn't respect this consensus. Unboubtedly the most annoyign thing from a personal point of view is where people refuse to inform themselves of the facts, and EK behaves this way on occasion which isn't the best plan when people are pissed off at you. I appologise if this comes accross as any sort of personal attack, I don't intend it to - but please tell me if it does. My intention is to explain why I feel this RfAr is needed. Thryduulf 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thtyduulf, once again I have read Snowspinner's statement and I have followed the links through and taken care to read them in context. None of them seem like a punishable "personal insult" to me. Certainly the type of language used by Everyking seems far from unusual here at Wikipedia: All day long people make comments like his without RfArs being raised. It seems to me I can find far more insulting language from some of the ArbCom members themselves. I reckon this RfAr is raised because of what Everyking says and not how he says it: Everyking is an irritant to Snowspinner and other admins who use their powers sometimes without reference to policy, or so it seems. It is that which has prompted the bringing the RfAr, not EK's mode of expression. Paul Beardsell 01:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

" If this is not accepted then I will not present evidence" reads like an ultimatum to me. And I never allow myself to be influenced by ultimatums, As for EKs other points. I am in the process of starting to look at this case now, but I generally look at everyone's behaviour (including Snowspinner). I urge you to present a defence. It's in your own best interests. And I'd like to thank the other wikipedians for presenting their ideas for a solution on this page. We will look over your ideas very carefully. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You could, assuming good faith, read EK's "ultimatum" as simply a disclosure of his current lack of free time and a declaration of his intentions. He is saying that he will not have time to properly prepare a defense if voting before a specified date occurs and, therefore, he won't bother in such circumstance. As doubtless you, Theresa, value EK every bit as much as everyone else claims to here then presumably you would rather EK prepare a defense. Paul Beardsell 23:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I've already stated that I would prefer Everking to prepare a defence. But sorry I don't buy a lack of free time argument. Everyking seems to find plenty of time to comment on everyone elses actions on AN/I so he has the time to comment on his own actions on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like you may be making a distinction between comments and actions. So in this case really I would not be commenting on my actions, I'd be commenting on my comments, since it's my commenting that Snowspinner objects to. I think a defense in this case would run along the lines of citing my right to hold and express opinions, that kind of thing. It's a really weird case, when you think about it. Snowspinner's controversial actions, including overt rejecting of policy, is apparently being given a pass, whereas my criticism of those actions is going to get me put on the rack. Everyking 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
No one is giving anyone a pass. If you have complaints about Snowspinner then put them in the evidence page. The point that I am making above, that you seem to have missed is - if you have time to critisize others then you have time to defend yourself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowspinner and Everyking

The case should be renamed "Snowspinner and Everyking". There is good precedent for this. Paul Beardsell 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That would require Everyking making claims against me, which would require his actual participation in the case. Snowspinner 02:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
It might require that if you were making the rules up as you go along. But precedent does suggest the renaming. Essentially you're pissed off that Everyking points out things you do which are against policy. You bring a complaint to that effect. It's Snowspinner and Everyking. Paul Beardsell 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already said that I will look at everyone's behaviour. We are not going to rename the case once it has been accepted. If Everyking wants to claim that his behavior is justified by Snowspinner's he will have to put the evidence of this on the evidence page as part of his defence. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the other part of Everyking's inquiry above - I'm open to sanctioning Snowspinner, if (and only if) Everyking provides convincing evidence to the effect that Snowspinner has abused his powers. By that, I mean Everyking's typical "Snowspinner blocked user:X without discussing it beforehand on WP:AN" comments are wholly insuffecient. →Raul654 08:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Insufficient how? I really cannot work this out. Is it this particular form of words you do not like? Could you give a form of words which would be acceptable to you? Paul Beardsell 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that failing to note a block on AN is not generally considered a reason to censure somebody, and that Everyking would have to make a case along the lines of my blocks being bad things. Something more in the form of "Snowspinner blocked X, who was just a clueless newbie. He blocked Y, who he was involved in a dispute with. He blocked Z, who wasn't actually a sockpuppet..." Snowspinner 15:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
This is mere comedy. Failing to discuss blocks beforehand is the least of my complaints. Everyking 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not the form of words -- it's the fact that his complaints are often utterly devoid of substance. However, I'm open to the possibility that this is not always the case, and that he might have a legitimate grievance or two against Snowspinner. →Raul654 15:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Why am I trying to convince someone who's already dead-set on punishing me? What you're saying is fantasy land stuff. When are my complaints ever devoid of substance? 95% of the time, the complaints are that Snowspinner acted outside of policy, and in many of those cases in direct and overt opposition to policy. Do you believe policy is not a matter of substance, Raul? Why are you an Arbitrator? Everyking 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
There's a deafening silence from Raul about this. He believes that my criticism of Snowspinner for ignoring and/or rejecting policy is punishable. And moreover, as we can see from Snowspinner's user page, he believes, like Snowspinner, that policy is irrelevant. Yet he is on the ArbCom. Is that not a little scary? How can one be on a body that serves to interpret and enforce policy and yet at the same time believe policy can be disregarded at will? Would any outsider to our processes not think that's completely insane? I mean, here we have an Arbitrator eager to punish someone just for emphasizing the importance of following the rules! Nothing more! That's the whole complaint: I bitch at Phil for not following the rules. Well, I say you worry about punishing the guy who's breaking the rules, personally. One's head could explode trying to make sense of this stuff. Everyking 07:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I didn't even see your reply above (you can thank Paul, whose edit immedieatly thereafter covered it up from my watchlist). Now to reply to your earlier comment (about being dead-set on punishing you), you're flat out wrong. I'm interested in seeing the current situation resolved as amicably as possible, in such a way as is most beneficial to Wikipedia. In particular, I agree with what was said earlier about the very good RC patrol work you do, and the fact that you have never misused your admin powers. So, despite your claims about our ulterior motives, I have no interest in seeing you de-adminned; I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice.
Now I'm not going to get into the specifics of your case (because I have not yet formed concrete opinions about it nor am I inclined to discuss it in this forum) I will reply to your comments about my interpretation of the rules. I have said repeatedly (and, when I was running for the arbcom, emphatically) that rules are not meant to be a straight-jacket. Administrators are not automatons - we expect admins to apply good judgement, common sense, and discretion. We're not here to make rules for every possible misbehavior bad-users can come up with; nor does the arbcom does not exist to adjudicate every dispute. Editing WIkipedia is a privilege, not a right; if you misbehave, it can be revoked. →Raul654 07:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Theresa has now said more than once now that she will look at eveyone's behaviour. You, Raul, have just said you will look only at Snowspinner's behaviour if Everyking jumps through some unspecified hoop. Theresa seems to accept that there may be grounds for renaming the case but says too late now. OK. But you are evidently reluctant to look at Snowspinner's behaviour at all. You don't see this as "Snowspinner and Everyking". What is the ArbCom's take on this as a whole? Paul Beardsell 15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
And(!) you once again pre-judge the whole damn thing. It is impossible for you to hold the opinion you do ("his complaints are often utterly devoid of substance") and to continue to judge him fairly when this is precisely the main issue at hand. And the appearance of being a fair judge is destroyed, which is almost as important. I think you should recuse yourself from this case. Paul Beardsell 15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. I find it utterly amazing that Paul can (with a straight face) paraphrase this sentence "I'm open to sanctioning Snowspinner, if (and only if) Everyking provides convincing evidence" - into this - "You, Raul, have just said you will look only at Snowspinner's behaviour if Everyking jumps through some unspecified hoop".
  2. Your request that I recuse myself is duly noted. Request denied. →Raul654 15:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  1. You mischaracterise what I say. The unspecified hoop is you insisting on the form in which evidence presented by Everyking will be considered acceptable by you without saying what this is. And a sneer of contempt is not a straight face. But you're having a laugh.
  2. I question your use of the word "duly".
  3. You snipe at the edges leaving the issue of plainly apparent bias unaddressed. Paul Beardsell 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some off-handed comments

If the arbitrators want to wait until September I suppose I can't stop them, but I intend to present evidence and move with reasonable speed on my end. Does EK have some explanation for why the case should be delayed specially? If he's busy and unable to present a defense, that would be one thing. If he's just stalling, I'd have to be opposed to it.

As for covering my conduct, it seems like the correct time to mention that would have been in the days while the case was being mentioned. But why rules lawyer. If Everyking wants to present evidence about my shameful conduct, my feeling is that he should go for it. Of course, if he wants to not present evidence before September, well, I'm not sure how the arbcom would consider evidence that hasn't been presented about my conduct. Snowspinner 02:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others, but I intend to treat this case as any other. If by the time I/we get around to looking at it, he has not presented a defense (or at least given us some reason why we should give him special consideration), then I will be considering the case sans his explinations of events. →Raul654 02:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I currently devote a large majority of my free time to Wikipedia, but it's important to me that that time be spent on article work of some sort, so that I feel productive, not defending myself in a case where the verdict is probably predetermined anyway. (I realize that Snowspinner doesn't do article work, so he can devote all his wiki-time to this stuff, but that's him, not me.) Therefore I am not going to be willing to devote more than a little bit of time here and there to even thinking about how to approach this, much less actually compiling evidence. Moreover I didn't say there could be no progress on the case until September. I just said voting should wait until September. Snowspinner can do what he wants in the meantime, and the arbitrators can deliberate over it, but they should wait to do the actual voting until I've had a comfortable window of opportunity to prepare a defense (if you want to find somebody who'll prepare a defense on my behalf, then such a long window won't be necessary).
Note the willingness of Raul to pursue this without hearing my side of the story. If we were pursuing things fairly, we would insist that the other side get heard: if necessary, we would have someone ready to write a defense on the other side's behalf. But Raul couldn't care less, it seems. He'll be perfectly happy to just take Phil's word for it and vote based on that. Everyking 04:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
May I step in here as an outside observor? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I've just come here after poking around on the Recent Changes, and found this discussion. Please forgive me if I'm out of line, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that the arbitrators are not allowed to make any decisions if the person for whom this request is named refuses to participate. Does that not mean that there could never be any arbitrations, because all of the accused would just refuse to participate? John Barleycorn 04:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I just said I wanted time. Everyking 05:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm about to go away for two weeks to Bulgaria and won't be able to vote until I get back on the 12th August. I'm asking the other arbitrators not to vote on this case until then because I would like to participate in this one. Thast IMO is plenty of time for you to prepare a defence. After that I will get to your case as and when it comes to the top of my list, which to be honest may very well not be for a couple of weeks anyway. But I will not deliberately stall. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Why do you want to participate in this one? Everyking 09:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
It takes my fancy. There is no special reason. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another biased arbitrator

Raul and I have bickered occasionally in the past, but at this point it is clear that he has a strong antipathy towards me. If the evidence on this very page weren't enough, here's something he just wrote about me on AN/I: "people might actually believe you when you make statements like this if you occasionally did your homework before commenting on issues you know nothing about". Well, that sounds a little bit biased to me. So, which arbitrators have expressed strongly negative feelings towards me?

  • Gerard
  • Raul
  • Fennec (called me "a disgrace to Wikipedia"; banned me from IRC for criticizing Snowspinner)
  • Jayjg (venomous attacks on at least two Wikipedia namespace pages)

All four of these have an obligation to recuse, in my opinion.Everyking 08:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Everking but it's up to the arbitrators to decide if they want to recuse, and no one else. As for Raul being a little bit biased - his words on this page have been firm not negative and the comment on AN/I sums up the general impression of you. You do often comment on cases that you know nothing about. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've heard this argument several times before. Someone subject to a RfAr asserts bias in one or more arbitrators. The arbitrators either claim enough maturity to be able to cope with the fact of previous squabbles or previously expressed bias or (as you do here) the issue of bias is not addressed and instead the arbitrators say what amounts "tough shit, grin and bear it, we're going to judge you bias or no bias". The problem is what it looks like. Here it does look as if there is bias. The words of some of the arbitrators commenting on this very case have the appearance of bias. For the good of Wikipedia where bias might be thought to exist arbitrators should always recuse. As a matter of course. Paul Beardsell 12:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
In any event Raul's words on this page are "negative". He says, paraphrasing, "(1) I refuse your request, (2) I don't care if you do not present a defence, (3) We don't like you. Up yours!" Up yours? Yes! We all know what "Have a nice day" means when said in a context like that. Paul Beardsell 13:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how you "paraphrasing" a firm reply to turn it into a rude one makes Raul's words rude. If that were valid I could paraphrase your "We all know what "Have a nice day" means when said in a context like that" as "go fuck yourself" and block you for making a personal attack. Only Raul's own words make any difference. Raul was firm. He is not someone to be swayed by tactics. But that does not make him biased or negative. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Pretend you don't know the amiable Raul. Read his response (not my paraphrase) again - I provided a link. Think how it would be understood by someone who does not know the characters involved. Once again: We all know what "have a nice day" means when said like that. It really can and often does mean what you say it means. Everyking says Raul is not being civil. I say he is likely to be seen to be saying "up yours". But neither EK nor I are correct: The man in Wikipedia Street knows exactly what Raul said. I think he might prefer the words you suggest. EK knows what Raul said. I know, you know, everyone knows. Raul knows. Paul Beardsell 13:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh it's they have a nice day you don't like , I interpret that as "nice try mate but no go", rather than "up yours". Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh, making an ironic point: Am I supposed to say "I don't like ultimatums"? Or "I never allow myself to be influenced by ultimatums"? Paul Beardsell 13:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to say what you like. But you point is going over my head. I have no idea what you are trying to convey? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I was responding to your implied threat of a block. The last time you did this, by the way, was when I referred to the Ambi/Grunt allegations against me that no one wants to discuss. I didn't really interprete your remarks as a threat of an iminent block, more of a "cool it". But Snowspinner, shooting from the hip, used it as an excuse to block me within minutes. I had assumed you didn't ask him to block me. We have a similar situation here: You allude to the possibility of a block. I then think every time I hit the save button I will find myself blocked by Snowspinner. That is why I think Snowspinner's actions are not constructive. He should do as EK suggests: He should discuss his proposed blocks beforehand. He should read the possibility of a block of up to 24 hours not as blanket permission to block for 24 hours on the tiniest excuse. Paul Beardsell 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
It was not my intention to imply a threat of a block. I was simply trying to point out that putting words into other people's mouths isn't valid. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
If what a person says is characterised correctly then it is not called "putting words in their mouth". So your point is circular. I say I do correctly characterise Raul's words. You do not interprete them the same way but you never (to my knowledge) accept any criticism of fellow ArbCom members. Paul Beardsell 15:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
My ultimatum point is this: EK did not issue an ultimatum. But if he did then I suggest you just did also, about my blocking for (not directly) claiming Raul said "go fuck yourself". You will doubtless say you did not issue an ultimatum. Fair enough, neither do I think you issued an ultimatum (but I bet Snowspinner did)! I don't think EK issued an ultimatum either. Assume good faith. Paul Beardsell 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You've missunderstood my point entirely. Everyking said "if you don't do this then I wont do that" which is an ultimatum wheras I am saying "You are talking rubbish" which isn't. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Theresa, what you also said was (paraphrasing) "I could interprete that this way and if I did I would block you". It is that that I am identifying as a (potential) ultimatum. We already know you disagree with me. Paul Beardsell 15:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Even if I was saying that, and I wasn't,It isn't an ultimatum. But this is trivial and I'm off now. See you when I get back. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I was not implying that anyone else had the power to force them to recuse. And if those words aren't negative, then all my comments about Snowspinner have been outright praise. Everyking 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think having said negative things in the past is grounds for recusal. Having said negative things about the specific issue that the arbitration case is about might be. For instance, I believe Fennec's comment was regarding the Ashlee Simpson issue, which has no bearing on this case. Snowspinner 17:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
It depends on the degree of the negativity, I suppose. Moderate, constructive criticism: I certainly would never want an Arb to recuse over that. But these Arbs have gone well beyond that; they have made it clear that they have a general antipathy for me as an editor. Fennec's remark was simply that I am "a disgrace to Wikipedia". That's a general remark on me as an editor. He's saying he really, really doesn't like me. In what alternate dimension do we consider it legit for Arbs to not recuse after saying such things about the accused party? Everyking 05:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, now that this has been reopened, I've concluded there's no way I can have any luck dealing with the ArbCom, simply because of bitter feelings. I believe that when I try to make my own cases I dig myself deeper in a hole because the ArbCom do not like me, do not like the things I have to say and do not like the way I say them. This has been going on for a long time and the ArbCom has always had the same opinion of me. Therefore what I need is an advocate of some kind to help me argue and present evidence. Ideally this should be someone who has good relations with the ArbCom. I also need time. If I get an advocate, I'd like two weeks from that date until any movement on the case starts, so we can prepare; if I don't get an advocate, I'd like a month. Everyking 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The way the arbcom is moving of late, I wouldn't worry too much. Have you requested an advocate at the AMA yet? Snowspinner 03:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
No, last time I tried that it didn't work. Everyking 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me unlikely that you'll find an advocate here. I think I'm the only one on the AMA currently reading or watching this page. And, well, I don't think you want me to advocate for you. Snowspinner 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll get better results if the ArbCom makes an official request that someone advocate for me. That's what I'm hoping for. Everyking 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I will request an advocate for you and delay work on the case until you get going with a defense. Fred Bauder 12:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Fred. Everyking 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to serve as an advocate for him - but what does that entail, exactly? Speaking of which, how do you "request an advocate" :)? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

EK and I are discussing possible repesentation in this matter (I responded to Fred's call on the AMA page), but I would encourage RN to contact him so that he can have a choice.Gator1 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the ArbCom explain to me what exactly I'd need to demonstrate or prove in order to be "acquitted", or at least not punished? Everyking 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of July, 2006 amendment

  • Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ➥the Epopt 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. Raul654 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I would go even simpler than that ➥the Epopt 05:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would prefer an extension of only one year. Fred Bauder 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I can live with that (duly adjusted). Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Wikipedia for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • As can I, per my comments below. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
    1. Ashlee articles—exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting—in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense—the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance—I was taking the defensive stance.
    2. Talk pages—the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
    3. No credit—where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
    4. Ruling consistency—Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
    5. The opposing party—Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself—in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public—not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
    6. Involved party?—hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.
  • I personally feel the above points are pretty important. Everyking 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?
  1. I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  2. It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions—the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this—once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
  3. I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
  4. Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
  5. I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
  6. Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.
Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content) [1] [2] [3] and once at Pieces of Me [4]. The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it [the info you remove] will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to Tcatron565 (talk • contribs), I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" [5], along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor 200.138.194.254 (talk • contribs), a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin [6] is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:

  1. This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian—to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Wikipedia—every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
  2. Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
  3. Again—for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did—in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
  4. I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harassment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was [7] really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we found out months ago, [8], [9], [10], and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We generally expect people to use their common sense. Are you suggesting we credit our users with too much?
FWIW, I'm happy with the proposals that we've worked out.
James F. (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Credit me with a little, then. Just a tiny bit! Everyking 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is going a little light on Everyking. On top of his repeated and terminal lack of clue, he has been publicly and privately encouraging of the Brandt/WR harrassment of contributors that he has taken a dislike to. This has stemmed so far as arguing for the unbanning of the guy who is making death threats against Kelly Martin.

Everyking was once a useful user, but has very long ago ceased to do anything that could not be done by the newest average newbie. I fail to see any noticeable benefit in having his poisonous presence on this site in the foreseeable future, and suggest either a ban limiting him to the article namespace or a complete ban from the site for at least several months. Rebecca 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user; I only argued for a more thoughtful approach to the situation, which I do routinely in these cases. And it is plain silly to say my contributions now are less than they ever were in the past—all a person has to do is just browse through them. Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. Everyking 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user No, that's simply a hair-splitting distinction without difference: I don't see how you can say an apology would not be acceptable in case of a threat like this...To just lock out a human being from contributing here for the rest of his life on the basis of one stupid comment that he probably regrets is the height of overreaction, [11] says Everyking about a death threat, and when the text of the threat is presented to him, responds with :The letter gives me further doubts about the user, but nevertheless I think you took the wrong approach [12]. Using the reaction to a death threat as Yet Another Opportunity to get in digs at admins is certainly a new low.
Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. And you, of course, are the only one who can do that, being uniquely invaluable and all. --Calton | Talk 08:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
What I said was all clearly contingent on the response of the user in question. My opinion was that a person should be given a chance to be reasonable, to apologize, and that an automatic, indefinite block with no possibility of future redemption was too harsh. I didn't say the user should simply be unblocked; I said more consideration and discussion with the user in question was warranted before reaching a final judgment.
And no, I'm not the only one who can do that (although the point is meaningless); I was just trying to refute the claim that I no longer do substantial work with some recent examples. Rebecca has been saying negative and untrue things about me for more than 18 months now, ever since the initial Ashlee dispute, when she tried to take the case to arbitration almost immediately after it developed. Everyking 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this latest decision has already been made, but I'd still like to throw in some comments ... I recently had a run-in with Everyking and he was chastising me for indefinitely blocking a user who had made death threats, saying it was "too harsh". Here are the relevant diffs: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] --Cyde↔Weys 18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking Appeal request (January 2007)

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the restrictions are working fine as is; Wikipedia's interests seem more important than your "self-respect" in this regard. Of the remedies, the bans against using AN/I and harassingcomment on other admins expire in November, and don't really have any bearing on the actual editorial work you're doing; the one regarding Snowspinner and the one requiring you to do what you should have been doing in the first place -- familiarizing yourself with a situation before commenting upon it -- aren't likely to be lifted at all. Your probation on pop music articles seem to me to be the reason you haven't run into any problems in the last few months, and that's a good thing. So i don't see any benefit to Wikipedia to lifting any of these sanctions. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify some things. There were no real problems surrounding pop music articles in the first place when that penalty was added; the issue that led to that remedy was associated with my admonishment of an admin who had in my opinion treated a very young, good faith user much too harshly. That admin and I were simultaneously bickering over a content issue related to pop music (mild arguing, not revert warring, and it fizzled out after a while), and that was taken as a reason to expand the ruling to include the pop music remedy, for reasons that may make sense to the ArbCom, but not to me (even if you think I was wrong to admonish the admin in question, what on earth does that have to do with pop music? This was never explained). Therefore it is inexplicable to me that that very pointless ruling could have prevented any problems; in fact I have gone on editing pop music articles fairly regularly and have encountered the same amount of trouble as beforehand—virtually none. It occurs to me that your attribution of this status quo situation to the ArbCom's penalty belies a poor understanding of the ruling and the issues that led to it, and in that case it is incongruous that an arbitrator would back the ruling barring me from commenting on actions without familiarization (although I did not do that even before the ruling was issued) but would himself comment without familiarization in responding to an appeal request about that very ruling.
It is said that the restrictions are "working"; well, yes, they are in the sense that I have decided to abide by them and none of the alleged previously existing problems now exist. However, might my cooperation be reasonably interpreted as a sign that the restrictions are not necessary? It is also said that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I question, however, how the ruling can be perceived as being in Wikipedia's interest, particularly at this point in time. From the ArbCom's perspective, would the ruling ever cease to be in Wikipedia's interest? Several months have passed without incident and it is still "not in Wikipedia's interest" for me to have my various freedoms restored. Will a point ever be reached when it will once again be in Wikipedia's interest to let me have those freedoms again? Why not leave the penalties in place eternally? I will continue to edit, which the ArbCom apparently approves of, while remaining under restrictions because the ArbCom feels uncomfortable with everything else I do, indefinitely—the ArbCom have can have it both ways while I continue to work in an environment that rewards my work by letting me continue wearing my stripes and shackles. Might the ArbCom pause to ponder the inevitable frustration on the other side of the situation? Everyking 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
We have talked this over at some length considering a number of options. Status quo seems to be the consensus. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
At what point will the ArbCom be willing to remove or reduce the penalties, then? Everyking 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That will happen November, 2007. I would be reluctant to ever take you off probation with respect to pop music articles, but find your input regarding administrative actions valuable, although obviously you need to carefully inform yourself and use more diplomacy than you have in the past. However, I 'm afraid my view is a minority view. Fred Bauder 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting—to ever take me off probation on pop music articles? To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years (since EK2, circa April 2005). I have edited those articles peacefully for a vastly longer period of time than it ordinarily takes someone to, for example, qualify as a trustworthy admin candidate. And yet you still perceive some problem that makes me some kind of perpetual threat? Honestly, I find that bizarre. Why, why are the arbitrators still holding such an old dispute against me? Furthermore, how could you apply a permanent remedy—are you going to reopen the case in November to amend it in spite of having no apparent justification for doing so, with no controversy having erupted in ages? Even considering all that the ArbCom has done to me before, that would be a truly remarkable thing. Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
"To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years" - Your memory has failed you Raul654 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
In November, 2007, most of the restrictions expire. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, see, I didn't realize this, but if the ruling is read literally there is actually no limit on that probation and therefore, I suppose, it will expire only upon my death or upon the ArbCom's own decision to lift it. The ArbCom is much more clever than me. There is still so much I don't understand, though. Why does the probation even exist, let alone eternally? At least in the case of the commenting about admins stuff we can agree that a controversy did exist, something was happening—but in the case of the pop music ruling, there was no controversy at that time (and had not been for more than a year previously) and that probation was tacked on for no apparent reason. It is beyond bizarre that I am subject to an eternal penalty for participation in a controversy that did not exist. Guys, at least explain some of this stuff. Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision. Raul654 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What, if not a change in behavior, does the ArbCom consider necessary to deem a person "reformed"? Furthermore, I will raise the very simple and logical point I raised earlier: if the ArbCom doesn't like whatever I do after the penalties are lifted, why not just promptly impose them again? The argument that this is difficult for the ArbCom to do doesn't hold water. Hell, you could say in advance that any reimposed penalties would be more severe than the old ones, to serve as additional deterence. Finally, the penalties will expire in November anyway—why is lifting them now worse than lifting them then? Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least. Raul654 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So is this a thought crime kind of thing? No matter what I do, what I think will continue to be used against me? I'm not even sure you understand what my position is on the various controversies of the past. I've never seen any indication from the ArbCom that it was even paying attention when I explained my positions repeatedly and at length. Everyking 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I was listening, but you wore everyone out. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I said less, you would have paid more attention? Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I dunno about Fred, but I certainly would have. It's how this medium works -- a lot of us (a majority? who knows) glaze over when confronted with prolixity. A short, pithy argument is vastly more effective than four paragraphs saying the same thing. (I'm sure there are people whose gut reaction is "wow, that's a lot of words, they must have some important content in them", but the only ones I've encountered with that opinion are the ones writing the long screeds.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You want pithy? I thought one was supposed to make a thorough argument with extensive support from logic and evidence. I could've just said: "Hey, I didn't do that stuff", but I don't think that would've accomplished anything more. The point remains, though, that I am skeptical that the ArbCom understands my positions, and if that is the case it is preposterous for Raul to tell me I am in "very deep denial". If the ArbCom's understanding of the past controversies ranges from superficial to nonexistent, and if it has ignored the arguments I've made in my defense, how much sense does it make to claim I am the one in denial here?
We have not ignored your defenses; we have rejected them as being patently untrue. As for your supposed thoughtcrime - if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are.
Furthermore, as to your self-serving claim that there are no reasons for the new pop-article probation, it came about as a result of your behavior towards Extraordinary Machine. And while I have no doubt that as you read that sentence, you were no doubt thinking of ways to - once again - to deny the reality of your behavior, I will not be giving them any heed. Suffice it to say, I have once already decided to take EM's claims as being true and rejected your explanations thereof. I suspect the other arbitrators feel the same way. Raul654 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, well, I will respond regardless, perhaps out of an idealistic belief that that is possible you'll listen even though you say you're plugging your fingers in your ears (of course, you did that at the time all this happened, too, when you were supposed to be weighing the arguments and such), or at least the other arbitrators might. EM and I were arguing about a pop music issue, yes; as you can see, I brought that up earlier in this discussion. However, for any penalty to be applied on the basis of that dispute is absurd—read the talk pages, for instance, or look at the page histories. In the previous dispute, which brought about EK1, the main argument against me was that I revert warred frequently against a large number of people. In this case with EM, there was little reverting from either side (and he was reverting more than me in any case, because he reverted some anons several times); the dispute was concentrated on the talk pages, where he eventually agreed to remove only uncited information. He removed a couple things then and went elsewhere, and the dispute ended. The dispute was very different from the earlier one because: A) I hardly reverted him at all, and B) it was just me and him (and a few anons, who were restoring content against EM's wishes), not me against a large group. This is not the kind of dispute that can be reasonably characterized as a controversy, or as anything particularly serious at all. Certainly the ArbCom would never dream about issuing a ruling for such a small dispute ordinarily, and I find it hard to believe even my worst enemy (if properly informed) could find me at fault for any of my conduct there. In fact, as I also noted earlier, the key issue had nothing to do with pop music: I admonished EM for issuing a warning to a third party that I felt was too harsh. It was apparently just the association of that EK-EM exchange with the simultaneous content dispute that caused the ArbCom to impose the ruling, because it was the same two people involved. You say my arguments were patently untrue; well, show some evidence that anything I've said here is untrue.
My final point concerns this claim: "if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions". Which actions do I defend, Raul? Can you tell me which, and can you tell me what my reasoning is? Can you identify the mistakes I've pointed out and expressed regret over? I don't believe you can, because you have no real understanding of any of this; as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is merely a mixture of the unfiltered claims of my opponents with some assumptions of your own. Furthermore, your statement is simply illogical: there is good reason I would not do the things the ArbCom has penalized me for if the restriction is removed, despite my views (which you do not appear to be at all informed about in any case). The reasons are simply prudence and pragmatism. I maintain both that I was fundamentally right and that I have learned from the mistakes I made during the old conflicts, and the foremost evidence with which I support the latter claim is the absence of anything the ArbCom finds objectionable in almost six months. Everyking 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, could the other arbitrators address the "thought crime" issue above? It appears Raul is saying that in order to get the restrictions lifted it's not enough for me to just not do what the ArbCom told me not to do in its ruling; the mere fact that I don't believe what the ArbCom believes about the issues means I have not "reformed". Of course it would be easy for me to simply lie and say a bunch of things the ArbCom would like to hear; I suppose I could've got the restrictions lifted ages ago, maybe even avoided ever having restrictions imposed to begin with, if I had done that. But I will not do that: to change my behavior to be more cautious and pragmatic is something I can do that's completely compatible with my principles, indeed it's positive self-improvement, but lying to suit somebody else's fiction is a completely different thing. Everyking 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it appears from the plain language of the amendment filed in July 2006 that the probation for pop music articles does not have a specified expiry date (in contrast to the administrative restrictions). Would you and the other arbitrators like to clarify this? Thatcher131 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly my intention. Everyking's editwarring over Ashlee Simpson ought to be a once in a life-time experience. Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
No clarification is necessary - it is indeed indefinite. Raul654 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Should I assume that you agree with Fred's apparent opinion that it should never be lifted under any circumstances whatsoever? And please address the questions I asked you earlier. Everyking 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Of all the remedies, I think the pop-article probation is probably the least essential. That said, I will reiterate my previous statement that I do not believe any of the remedies should be lifted (or allowed to expire) until you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you would not go back to your old behavior. Your recent behavior is encouraging, but insufficient - especially in light of your impenitence. Raul654 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Especially—what does that mean? Does that mean that, if more time passed without incident, the ArbCom would eventually relent? Or do you think it should never be lifted as long as I'm committing the thought crime of disagreeing with the ArbCom about what happened in the past? Everyking 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom. How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? Everyking 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. Everyking 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling. With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern. The integrity of Wikipedia comes first. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Didn't I respond to the exact same thing earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. Everyking 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling. Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something? This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views—most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. Everyking 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Noting that my opinion does matter, I think that what little Ive come across of your behaviour has been good and well. however, I also fail to see instances where these remedies have adversely affected you (maybe I just haven't run across it.) Historically good conduct has shortened or softened remedies, but not have them dropped entirely. The problem lies in the fact that this is an entirely subjective matter, and depends on the opinions of the Arbitrators and their willingness to revisit the case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's make this easy.

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Raul654 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. FloNight 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Accept to permit occasional well-considered comments by Everyking on policy questions and administrative actions. Fred Bauder 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I do not believe that we should revisit prior decisions without clear and compelling reasons.
  • Accept to at least re-consider some of the remedies, per Fred. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject. Charles Matthews 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Everyking_3_4160.html"