Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell 1.1 Ambi 1.2 The admissibility of evidence 1.3 Kangaroo court 1.4 Grunt loses the plot? 1.5 Motion to Close 1.6 ArbCom resignations 1.7 Counting the votes 1.8 Alternative resolution 1.9 ArbCom triumphs! 2 Rovoam: assassination threats?.. 3 Request for temporary injunction against User:Alfrem 4 Image use 5 Request for ArbCom Action re: RIL and Melissadolbeer — question for Fred, Sean, Sannse, David, Mark Theresa 6 Hey! Let's get Everyking 6.1 Prejudice 6.2 Defense against charge indicates guilt

Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell

I am placing Paul's messages under a single Level 1 heading, instead of having them scattered over various Level 1 headings. To be honest, I don't know why you're posting here instead of at the talk pages of your own discussion page. The Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell case is beginning to flood this talk page. --Deathphoenix 02:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I have done so is that until I took debate about the case in which I was embroiled away from the case-specific pages (the court room itself) to the general pages (to the steps of the court house) few of the questions I was asking about the case were being addressed timeously or at all. I was essentially being ignored. Where my questions are not being answered for some time, where the behaviour of the ArbCom or one of its members is against the principles of natural justice or its own rules or the the principles it itself identifies as applying to the RfA I am embrolied in I will contine to raise those issues here. My only effective weapon is to expose the oft-ridiculous behaviour of some ArbCom members to as much public scrutiny as possible. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my view many of these these issues are of general interest. What one says is more interesting than who one is. I will therefore outdent and leave my sigs so those who wish to ignore me can. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You want to go on a soapbox, fine. Read this before continuing. If you wish to continue using Wikipedia as your soapbox (which may get your further sanctions), don't put a level 1 heading on each and every point of yours, because doing so is disruptive. If you must make additional headings, insert them as level 2. Enough people have this talk page on their watch lists that you don't need to place a million level 1 headings to get their attention. I'm putting your comments back as level 2 headings. Please don't revert me again. --Deathphoenix 22:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did not initiate this RfA. The case should never have been accepted as the incidents were all 10 months old. I was found guilty by some members of the ArbCom before I had a chance to file a statement, and by others before I had assembled any evidence. I raised certain basic queries on the RfA's own pages some of which were not answered for 6 weeks, those answers do not all address the points raised, some queries remain unanswered. Ambi and Grunt accuse me of other, new stuff for which they decline to bring evidence. Ambi does so on a page ordinary wikipedians (i.e. me and you) may not edit and that page's Talk page is the one where I am routinely ignored. I need a bloody soap box. What you need, Deathphoenix, rather than to criticise me making a noise here, is a competent ArbCom. Paul Beardsell 22:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambi

Please see here. Paul Beardsell 02:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where Paul Beardsell says "It took a threat to get some action out of you." [1]Tkorrovi 23:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am unsure what point Tk is trying to make. Perhaps he would care to elaborate. Paul Beardsell 02:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ambi undertook to remove her allegations of bullying pending an attempt by her to substantiate them. The allegations are made on a page ordinary wikipedians are not allowed to edit. The allegations are false. Another has also said they are without foundation. She has neither removed the allegations nor substantiated them. I have reminded her. More than once. Now the case is coming to a close, apparently. Before it does Ambi should remove her false allegations or she should substantiate them. Paul Beardsell 01:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Ambi has been on Wikipedia. I have left a message on her talk page. No response. Paul Beardsell 10:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The admissibility of evidence

I attempt to discuss a general principle re the admissibility of evidence here but there has so far been no response from the ArbCom. Or anyone. Comment invited. Paul Beardsell 09:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No response. Paul Beardsell 09:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about this as a response: stop digging yourself deeper. I know I'm tired of the incessant spew coming from this case; I suspect the ArbCom is too. The ArbCom is not a courtroom, so extensive legalisms and lawyerese tend to be looked down on. --Carnildo 03:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could see an alternative. My accuser in the case claims me saying to him, as you now say to me, "When in a hole, stop digging" was a personal insult. And I wish the ArbCom would pay better attention to due process. Paul Beardsell 03:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I replied on the arbitration case talk page [2] (in the end of the section). I would recommend to continue any discussion concerning only that particular arbitration case there, not here. This page here is for discussing general issues, which are common to many arbitration cases.Tkorrovi 15:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Carndilo: admissability is a very basic concept understood even by lay people (heck--it's brough up on law shows all the time, it's a law TV buzzword), so it makes no sense to group it under "extensive lawyerese" as if it were somehow confusing or hard to understand. The Arbitration Committee is does Arbitration. Arbitration is, by its very nature, very similar to a court room. So your reasoning is bunko. Not just that, but one of the arbitrators had specifically told me that evidence from #wikipedia on IRC was not admissable, so the ArbCom actually disagrees with you.

To tkorrovi: This SHOULD reamin here, because it is a general issue that affects all arbtiration cases, not just this one. Allowing people to essential drown the arbitrators with irrelevent (inadmissable) evidence only distracts them from the real truth behind the matter. It's not limited to "personal attacks", but for the sake of demonstrating how this can be a problem (as evidenced by this case and mine), I will use that as an example.

It is a tremendous act of bad faith to list any criticism of someone's behavior as a "personal attack." For example, if someone engages in rather dishonest behavior, would it be a "personal attack" to call them a liar? Of course not, the same applies to accusations of trolling and other things. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks page even has a discussion going on about whether or not such accusations (such as troll) should automatically be considered person attacks.

Now, that said, someone can easily construct a list of criticism of someone's behavior and create an RfA with a said list. However, it just wastes the time of the arbitrators time since it's being submitted as something it's not. Plus the arbitrators will likely just skim over it, get an impression of some hostility and automatically label them as what they're not.

While it is possible to reply in your own section to refute these accusations, that's really just making the RfA even longer and harder to read. If it's been establish that some evidence is not a case of [insert name of the _explicit_ accusation made accusation], then it should simply be deleted from the page, as it's not admissable. Nathan J. Yoder 17:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what the ArbCom ought to be doing. The purpose of Wikipedia is to build a free (as in both speech and beer) encyclopedia. The ArbCom exists to further that goal by trying to resolve the most serious user conduct disputes, and—if necessary—sanctioning egregious offenders for the purpose of allowing the rest of us to carry on with that primary task.

The ArbCom is not a court of law. Records of ArbCom proceedings will not appear on the nightly news, nor will they affect your ability to secure employment or earn the respect of your real-world friends and family. They do not have access to the secret files of the KGB, nor can they employ retired CIA operatives with thumbscrews to extract confessions. They can't fine or imprison you; their only power is restricted to if and how you may edit Wikipedia.

This is not all necessarily true. I post under my own name and I am more identifiable than most of you. That I react so fiercely here is partly a consequence of that. (I imagine some might think that I am doubly unwise!) Also note that no one here as agreed to restrict their actions to Wikipedia. There is recourse to normal legal process. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The notion of 'admissibility' in this context is silly. The ArbCom can and should consider any information which is relevant to a given user conduct issue, whether it be on Wikipedia, in the #Wikipedia IRC channel, or if it is on a personal blog. (To suggest an extreme illustrative case...if I were to post a message "I have been defacing GNAA on Wikipedia every day this week as an anonymous IP. Suckers" in my blog, I would expect ArbCom to consider that.) While the ArbCom is not empowered to sanction editors for their behaviour outside of Wikipedia itself, it is appropriate for them to consider that behaviour where it directly affects Wikipedia events.

The notion is not silly. Far from it. It all hinges on the definition of "relevant" or "admissible" - they are near synonyms so your argument is a little circular. I find I have had to repeat my well-reasoned assertions of Tkorrovi's dishonesty and trolling in order to defend being accused of making these assertions unreasonably. But I am being found guilty NOT of the original "bad" behaviour (which Grunt refuses to cite) but because I re-make the assertions! I am not being allowed to defend myself! Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For remarks made within Wikipedia, admissibility shouldn't be an issue. Obviously the substance and tone of editors' remarks are likely to be quite different depending on the namespace (articles, article Talk, Wikipedia, etc.) in which they are working. Within the context of an RFArb I'm sure that some leeway may be granted precisely because criticism of behaviour is often necessary. The ArbCom can, should, and probably does take this into account.

Yes! So you would think. But not in my case. The error which you are making is that you trust the ArbCom to be behaving well. I say they are not. This is not a welcome message. I am denounced for this! I simply ask: Have a look. The ArbCom is NOT being reasonable here. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect to the mere act of describing someone's behavior as a personal attack, one must be careful. Saying "I think User:TenOfAllTrades is violating the the Three Revert Rule on GNAA" is acceptable. Saying "I think that asshole User:TenOfAllTrades is violating the the Three Revert Rule on GNAA" is a personal attack. (Again, an extreme illustrative example.) Tone and phrasing are important. It's usually not necessary to call someone a liar. Use phrasing like, "I believe that User:TenOfAllTrades is mistaken, for the following reasons...", or "User:TenOfAllTrades' current statements seem to contradict his remarks at...". Not only is it more polite, but it makes it easier to back down if (heaven forfend) you later discover you might have made an error.

Generally good advice. But when a lie is detected, it is pointed out (maybe even politely) and then it is repeated, again and again, finally it gets to the point where the liar must be denounced. Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite frankly, if half the effort spent here on assertions of bias, inadmissibility of evidence, general wikilawyering, and petty bickering were instead directed to trying to make peace, resolve the dispute, and maybe offering a mea culpa, this mess likely would never have reached arbitration. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 18:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but due process was not followed in this case! There is real bias, some evidence is genuinely inadmissible, and some of this bickering is far from "petty". AND NO ONE IS TRYING TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE - THE ARBCOM IS CONCERNED TOO MUCH WITH THE DEVISING AND ADMINISTRATION OF PUNISHMENT. And I will soon write a short section here on the fallacy of denouncing an argument only because it is "wiki-laywering". Paul Beardsell 23:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is important in presenting your case to focus on the main points you want to make and point us to good examples of edits which illustrate those points. RIght or wrong, most arbitrators will give up on masses of disorganized material (see Vertigo. Fred Bauder 18:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Something is more important than that: Due process. It can take a lot of work and time to defend oneself against a barage of half-truths, inventions and lies. In such a circumstance the existence of the ArbCom makes the problem possible: The mendacious can abuse the process. In my case I asked for the ArbCom to quickly sift the large set of accusations to see if their was a case to answer. I waited and reminded but this request took 7 weeks to answer and, I suggest, the answer I eventually obtained took only one minute to craft and it is unsatisfactory. By that time many members of the ArbCom had already made their mind up. And now seem incapable of admitting they may have been over hasty. And in a frenzy of post hoc justification the mistakes are being piled up to the point where the ArbCom makes itself look ridiculous. This case should never have been accepted. A least not in the form it was presented. At least Tkorrovi should have been told (to find himself an advocate to help him) to present a coherent case containing allegations that had at least some chance of being fairly upheld. Assuming, that is, that was possible. A suggestion, why not start again? Declare a mistrial. There are more than adequate grounds for doing so. Paul Beardsell 01:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Six weeks later: NO RESPONSE FROM THE ARBCOM. Paul Beardsell 10:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Kangaroo court

Here we have Grunt admitting to changing his vote in a RfA case because he does not like my demeanour. He further makes charges which he has yet to substantiate. Paul Beardsell 02:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) And he continues to fail either to justify himself or to resile from his position. Paul Beardsell 02:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nathan J Yoder is right: Arbitration is, by its very nature, very similar to a court room. However, what you and he need to realize, is that it is NOT a court room (however similar). There is no set of real-world laws that the committee has to follow. I warned you two months ago "Complaining about the process is your right, I suppose, but it won't win you the case." --Kbdank71 18:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You tried to give me good advice back then. I found myself unable to follow it. I had raised questions which were ignored for weeks by the ArbCom. They found me guilty before seeing my statement or my evidence. I got cross. Now I have annoyed them more and but I am in the process of amply demonstrating that they do not act reasonably and they are incapable of admitting they may have made a mistake. Now Grunt admits he is finding against me because I am holding the ArbCom to account! Paul Beardsell 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore: You are wrong that there is no set of real-world laws the ArbCom has to follow. Everyone, in the street, at the golf club, or on a web forum has to behave according to "real-world laws" (quoting you). You introduce the issue not me so don't get cross at me for pointing out there is many a golf club committee which has had its unfair decision reverted by due legal process. We can all therefore be confident that we can demand and, eventually, receive due process from the ArbCom. All of us are liable for our actions. Paul Beardsell 00:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More to the point - given that PSB's incivility is what led to the arbitration in the first place, it's not surprising in the least that Grunt should change his vote based on Paul's (less-than-stellar) demeanour during arbitration. →Raul654 19:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What the Lord Chief Justice for Life (nearly) of the Supreme Court of Wikipedia Behaviour (and, soon, Wikipedia Content) is endorsing here is Grunt's assertion (paraphrasing): "Behave in the Court or we will find you guilty of whatever you are charged." Paul Beardsell 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But further: Note that the Head of the ArbCom has now effectively found me guilty. Before the case is over, before the arguments have been completed. This is a farce, not justice. Paul Beardsell 00:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) Unless, by making the comment in a section entitled Kangaroo Court he is crafting a too clever joke! Paul Beardsell 04:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to less-than-stellar behaviour there are plenty of examples that can be cited. There are number of cases of this from the arbitrators themselves. That I am pissed off and show it is, I reckon, understandable: How am I supposed to take such cavalier attitudes except other than personally - I am personally involved. I reckon the ArbCom should be more on its guard from witnesses cosying up to them than those who are prepared to make their contempt of the stupid process and their sometimes stupid pronouncements plain. That the chief honcho of the the ArbCom approves of one of his members acting in such an unfair manner is no longer a surprise to me. That further he makes his judgement of the RfA plain and public here when he is recused (or ought to be - he certainly seemed to have arranged, after my recusal request, not to get involved) from this case detracts once again from the process. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. You should be ashamed. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that user behaviour is certainly something that the arbitration committee looks at, the behaviour of those involved in an arbitration case is highly relevant in changing an arbitrator's vote. Such matters are highly relevant to an arbitration case that involves and examines the behaviour of the involved parties. --Deathphoenix 19:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In which case the ArbCom would be judging only onanistically, so to speak. Surely members of the committee need to be able to judge, to step back, to be forgiving of the manner in which the evidence is presented and bona fide queries about the process itself are made, and not be distracted from that upon which it was asked to arbitrate by the emotional state of any of the proponents during the process itself. (Unless, of course it has been specified in advance what contitutes contempt of process, and anyone's actions fall outside that specification.) One is not able to judge effectively if one is affecting that on which one is judging. Not answering rational questions made by Paul he appears to believe is verging on the vexatious. Aren't his beliefs and the facts that give rise to them to be given any credence? If ArbCom's objective were to see what happens when you try to wind someone up then it would indeed be highly competent ;-) Matt Stan 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If and where Paul has been guilty of any incivility, let it be examined. I'm sure that if you could show Paul how his behaviour might have upset any particular sensibilities then he'd be happy to apologise and retract whatever was deemed offensive. Where has Paul been uncivil and to whom? Matt Stan 22:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think of me, place that on one side and consider the issues. That my behaviour in March-May 2004 was a problem is not demonstrated by my behaviour now. Have you considered the possibility, for example, that my behaviour now is ironic. (Audience laughs out loud.) Have you considered that until the RfA no one else seems to have been unduly concerned by my behaviour other than my one antagonist? The incidents complained of were 10 months before the date the RfA was brought but only a short time after I had made my annoyance at Raul654 known elsewhere. If you are charged for an ancient speeding incident I am sure you would not like to be found guilty on the basis that the magistrate saw you speeding in the court parking lot. Paul Beardsell 20:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) Or that you were dragged to court on a trumped up charge because you told the magistrate's boss recently to keep his car clean[3]. Paul Beardsell 22:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6 weeks later: NO RESPONSE FROM THE ARBCOM to either Matthew's points or mine. Paul Beardsell 10:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Grunt loses the plot?

This is just plainly unbelievable. Despite all of the above about due process and admissibility and wherein I mention this we now have my (I suggest: reasonable) criticism of him added as one of the insults he intends to find me guilty of in the Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell case. See [4]. Either I am being deliberately provoked by Grunt or he is losing the plot. Paul Beardsell 02:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...note that this is in response to a personal attack in which I am called "a disgrace to Wikipedia" [5]. I still maintain the belief that Paul's actions largely speak for themselves and are inexcusable. -- Grunt   ҈  02:43, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

But the maintained belief would dissolve were the evidence actually sought. Grunt refuses to cite the reasoning behind the belief he "maintains" because he knows it will not withstand scrutiny. Disagree? Cite the evidence. Paul Beardsell 10:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I provided the necessary link to that. You made false allegation against me in your capacity as a member of the ArbCom. I tried to discuss this with you. You refused. I have discussed it here in depth and you are watching this page. Rather than back down you repeated your false allegation and still refused to provide evidence. You "maintain a belief". You call the ArbCom into disrepute (not that that is too difficult). And, as a member of the ArbCom, to act in such a way is a disgrace to Wikipedia and the ArbCom. Whatever semblance of justice there is here you destroy it. At the very least you should now recuse yourself from this case. At the very least! Paul Beardsell 02:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that the respected Arbitration Committee, who have been involved in countless numbers of cases would suddenly implode and "disgrace" themselves and Wikipedia because of one person. --Deathphoenix 03:07, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Death, that Grunt disgraces the whole ArbCom or the whole of Wikipedia is not a claim I am explicitly making. Paul Beardsell 03:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Award them a barnstar! How do you explain it? Paul Beardsell 03:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, they already disgraced themselves a while ago; the surprise will come when they decide to start looking for redemption. Everyking 03:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Motion to Close

And now there is a motion to close. But the ArbCom has not replied to many of the points I make, here and elsewhere. Not even to acknowledge many of them. And I remain falsely accused by Grunt who discredits himself, the ArbCom and Wikipedia by failing to substantiate his false allegations. Shame on him and shame on you all. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

My point is (I find I have to be painfully explicit) is that it is at the moment inappropriate to close the case. There is unfinished business. It would be better to close with some hope that everybody can find a way to be content with the proposed decision. Paul Beardsell 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to thank all arbitrators for a lot of necessary work they did, there is a clear decision now. Of course it is possible to continue any dispute endlessly, and no one can say how long it would take until all parties would be content with the decision, but it should end at some stage, as lasting 3 months and 20 days this was already the longest arbitration case in the history of Wikipedia. Therefore I think it would be a right decision to close it now.Tkorrovi 16:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

But presumably you would be happier if I were happier. That you take pleasure in my discomfort is not something you claim. Or is it, Tkorrovi? At the least you are too hasty. At most you are not interested in due process. Paul Beardsell 16:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No, I cannot agree that an arbitration case lasting 3 months and 20 days is hasty. No, I don't take pleasure in your discomfort, and I hope that it would not be vice versa either.Tkorrovi 17:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It took you ten months to bring this vexatious and vindictive RfAr. You weren't in a hurry then. Three months and 20 days must surely be a very short amount of time to you. Paul Beardsell 22:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in a hurry and I never was.Tkorrovi 23:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

That's because this was an abuse of process by you. You never were insulted. You chose to shout insult in the same way some boxers sometimes falsely claim they have been hit below the belt. It takes a vigilant referee to spot such abuse of process. And that is what we don't have here: a vigilant referee. Paul Beardsell 09:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the analogy: Tkorrovi writhing in apparent agony. Grunt blindly declaring a recent low blow, an unfair fight "in progress". Me asserting I haven't even been in that boxing ring for ten months. Grunt and the other refs ignoring me but finding against me without even giving me a chance to tell my side. Me saying: Look at the video! The refs saying we don't have time: Obviously Tkorrovi is in pain. Me saying he is play acting. Ambi calling me a bully. Me (and others) saying Hey What!?!? Grunt not liking my demeanour upon being falsely accused using this as evidence against me. Grunt saying I am trying to intimidate the refs. Me saying Hey What!?!?! Grunt refusing to back his allegation with evidence. Me saying Grunt disgraces Wikipedia. Pork4321 backing Grunt without reason or evidence. Tkorrovi still fondling his balls. Me saying what about Ambi's and Grunt's false allegations? Paul Beardsell 10:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Voting continues without comment as if no objection has been raised. Please see here. Paul Beardsell 11:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and by fair process, the case is already closed now. Because even if we count all arbitrators without a pending resignation, there remain only two arbitrators who can vote against closing the case, and even if they both would vote against, there would still remain four net support votes.Tkorrovi 20:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom resignations

It has just come to my attention that both Ambi and Grunt have resigned. Paul Beardsell 11:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

So, who is going to remove Ambi's false allegation against me from the proposed decision page (seeing non-ArbCom members are not allowed to edit there)? Paul Beardsell 11:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

These resignations coincidental(?) to my complaints against these former arbitrators' unfairness raises some issues: Paul Beardsell 12:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Grunt accepted Tkorrovi's RfAr and he did so wrongly: He identified as a current issue one which was 10 months old. This remains an unexplained but acknowledged mistake as he eventually amended his "in progress" nonsense but only after other members of the ArbCom had wrongly taken his judgement on trust and blindly enjoined with him in accepting the case. Grunt continued to show bias in several respects: Grunt drafted much of the wording in the RfAR proposed decision and the wording and identified "facts" are unfair to me. He accused me of intimidating the ArbCom but refused to provide evidence. He used my demeanour during the case as evidence to support Tkorrovi's out of date and many obviously false allegations against me. When I said his behaviour was a disgrace he cited exactly that statement as being a personal attack and he inserted that as evidence into the RfAr! An RfAr which is about my conduct 10 months ago! This wrongful addition to the evidence still stands in the RfAr which is NOW being voted on. This is patently unfair and the remaining members of the ArbCom refuse to comment one word on all of this despite my repeated drawing of their attention to this. NOT ONE WORD! Paul Beardsell 12:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Similarly no one on the ArbCom has seen fit to comment one way or the other on Ambi's false accustion against me made in a place where only ArbCom members are allowed to edit. The ArbCom should be striving to be *seen* to be scrupulously fair. Either they must support Ambi or they must disagree with her. It is not an option to remain quiet. Paul Beardsell 12:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Counting the votes

Should an ArbCom member resign during an RfAr then obviously their vote is not counted. Paul Beardsell 12:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, their resignations are not yet active. Secondly, if their votes were discounted, then the number required for a majority would be decreased in any case - and the overall result would be the same -- sannse (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Alternative resolution

I suggest an alternative resolution. (1) The ArbCom declare a mistrial. (2) All the parties agree not to initiate futher discussion on the case. (3) All parties agree that bygones are bygones. (4) We get on with creating a good encyclopedia. I will agree to this if the ArbCom, if Grunt and Ambi, if Matthew Stannard, if Tkorrovi will. What say you all? Paul Beardsell 13:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hallelujah. I don't know Paul, but from reading his (many many (many)) posts about this, I feel like I do. This sounds like a good faith effort to try and resolve this. --Kbdank71 13:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• No I don't agree. Why we should, only because of your misinterpretations above? And I don't want to start to discuss your interpretations because, indeed, I don't want to start all the process again. There is a fair process of abitration, everything had to be solved *before* the motion to close, and therefore *before* the two arbitrators resigned, there was *plenty* of time. I wanted to be polite with you, I tried to avoid starting to argue with you once again, all I wanted was a fair arbitration so that there *finally* would be peace again. I did trust the process and even accepted the accusations against me, where I could argue further, for the sake of finally settling the matter, and I expected the same from you, but now you, instead of that, want to start everything all over again. I don't agree, but I'm ready, I said I'm not in a hurry because I never lost my patience. But I say that there is one fair solution for this conflict, and this is closing the case now and have peace -- no more arguments, no more disputes, I think it's better for everyone. This is why there is an arbitration, I think many should thank the arbitration for avoiding many conflicts in Wikipedia, we may finally understand it only when we see what happens, when there is no arbitration. We must appreciate the people who agree to deal with all these conflicts in their free time, and a lot of work they did, as we see that likely no one can do that work for a long time.Tkorrovi 16:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tk, I am not here proposing that we start the whole process again. Won't you at least agree that most of my points are being ignored, and that therefore it is inappropriate to close pending at least an explanation for them being ignored. Paul Beardsell 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The AC process is in it's closing stages. The AC members appear to be happy with the findings of facts and remedies that have already been agree apon among the members of the AC. Of course I welcome Pauls offer to let bygones be bygones and to get on with creating a good encylopedia. But there will be no declaration of a mistrial. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

My offer is in good faith but it is contingent upon a miscarriage of justice not occurring. There is prima facie a danger of a miscarriage if much of what I say is ignored without explanation. What my offer does is allow the ArbCom not to bring itself further into disrepute by the simple expedient of it acknowledging that this case could have been run been run better. Paul Beardsell 18:46, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tkorovi seems to have misunderstood what I suggested. And I think Theresa should not jump too quickly. Too quickly for anyone to believe the ArbCom has discussed it as a body. In the interim, I'll just post my suggestion again:

I suggest an alternative resolution. (1) The ArbCom declares a mistrial. (2) All the parties agree not to initiate futher discussion on the case. (3) All parties agree that bygones are bygones. (4) We get on with creating a good encyclopedia. I will agree to this if the ArbCom, if Grunt and Ambi, if Matthew Stannard, if Tkorrovi will. What say you all?

Paul Beardsell 18:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Theresa, there is no need for a "mistrial" -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom triumphs!

So, they've come to a final decision. But let's tally up: Tkorrovi cannot edit the only article he ever edits for three months. I can't edit the article at all but I haven't been doing so anyway. Each of us is admonished not to resort to personal insult but then no one has ever shown that I have. And, if(!) I ever did, that was 13 months ago. So I will not be changing my behaviour at all. And on the plus side two less than stellar members of the ArbCom have fallen on their swords because why? Because they refused their upstandingly righteous colleagues' request to apologise to me? Because Jimbo said if you're going to be judges you must act better? I don't know. I am glad they've gone. Now I just need to file a RfAr against them. Paul Beardsell 23:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow you are certainly full of your own importance if you think they resigned because of you. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

What? You mean they didn't "resign" because of their disgraceful behaviour. You're just teasing me. There's no way any respectable body would have put up with that nonsense. Making unsubstantiated allegations. A judge can't do that anywhere and get away with it. No, whatever you say, it looks like just how I have described. Paul Beardsell 23:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ther behaviour wasn't disgraceful. You OTOH have tried to bully the AC. Which is silly becasue the AC is made up of a bunch of hardnosed, thicked skinned, sensible people, who don't allow themselves to be bullied. BTW judges don't make allegations, they make judgements. The judgement is that you are on a personal attack parole so I'd lay off the personal attacks on Grunt and Ambi ( and yes stating the resigned because of disgraceful behaviour is a personal attack) or you are going to find yourself blocked from editing. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Not just thick skinned, Theresa. (You should calm down, BTW, your spelling is suffering.) If I argue my case I am guilty of bullying. Good judges usually make good judgments. Bad judges usually make bad judgements. And a bad judge can also make an unsubstantiated allegation. Judging and alleging are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Grunt and Ambi did and their allegations were unfair. Unfounded. More than that: Disgraceful! And now you say I am a bully. That is unreasonable. I make my points, you cannot answer them, therefore I am a bully. That is not the argument of a good judge. You're as bad as Ambi. Paul Beardsell 00:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

My spelling is and always has been a load of crap. I am quite calm.Thank you for comparing me to Ambi. I take that as a compliment. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Cheers Theresa, Paul. Could y'all keep it down up there? Some of us are trying to get some sleep, and this ongoing discussion keeps lighting up my watchlist.

Theresa, I'd suggest making a closing statement and then letting Paul have the last word here. He's obviously got enough time on his hands to continue trying to argue his case after the ArbCom has packed up and gone home; I'm not sure it's a good idea to continue to give him the attention he's seeking. The matter's been settled—to mix some metaphors, I'd say that Paul's just letting off some steam beating a dead horse.

Paul, it would be really classy to acknowledge that the ArbCom has made its decision and move on. This isn't a court of law; it is an encyclopedia. The ArbCom seems to think that you were more interested in bickering than in building an encyclopedia, and continuing to argue here is just going to cement that impression. Write some good articles; be a postive, productive, constructive Wikipedian. Put as much effort into your writing as you have into your arguments here. A few thousand positive edits from now the ArbCom might well consider lifting some of your restrictions—I'd be willing to argue on your behalf if you make the effort.

Now I'm going to take the advice I gave above and take my leave of this page. Good night all. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Ten, it all sounds very reasonable but I suggest you have one or two things wrongs: I agree Wikipedia is not the ArbCom just as wider society is not the Law Courts. When someone is falsely accused in society's courts it is little comfort to the wrongly accused to remind them there is more to society than court. And, by obvious analogy, it is neither helpful nor necessary to remind me that there is more to Wikipedia than the ArbCom. The point is that Wikipedia deserves both a good ArbCom and one which is seen to be good. Paul Beardsell 15:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not to the credit of the ArbCom nor to Wikipedia to not follow reasonable due process. I am not suggesting slavish adherence to some detailed procedures manual. But an obvious example: It is not to the credit of the ArbCom nor to Wikipedia to not reply to comments or questions from a party to a dispute. Paul Beardsell 15:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not to the credit of the ArbCom nor to Wikipedia to allow members of the ArbCom to make unsubstatiated and false allegations. It was disgraceful behaviour by Ambi and Grunt to do that. (Cue another 24hr ban by Cokesniffer.) For appearances sake the ArbCom should have insisted that these, err, mistaken statements should have been withdrawn. See also these jottings. Paul Beardsell 15:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

You were fine, actually, until "Cokesniffer." Snowspinner 18:58, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

---

In the most general, in my opinion, Paul Beardsell wants to show here that some of the decisions of the arbitrators were in contradiction with some of his arguments, but he doesn't consider the pro et contra principle of justice.Tkorrovi 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It is difficult to work out quite what you mean, Tk. For starters, perhaps you could provide a reference to this principle. Paul Beardsell 18:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam: assassination threats?..

Dear ArbCom,

Following my brief communication with Fred ([6]), I think it is time for you to seriously re-consider the issue with Rovoam, which indeed, as I said before, is an unprecedented case in the history of Wikipedia. The regular disclaimers about Rovoam give enough info on the range of this vandal’s activity.

But, now I want to share with you an email that I received today from an anonymous person, who I am 100% sure is Rovoam. This email uncovers a totally new side of Rovoam, showing that this person is not just a virtual troll and vandal, but may also be dangerous in real life. Please, read attentively:

I have no doubt that this is Rovoam, even his intentional distortion of his English could not deceive me. I do not think that the threat is real, although Rovoam in the past has similarly threatened me by writing “Thank you Mr.TABIB HUSEYNOV. I will face to face in Baku very soon, and we will discuss with you all your problems” ([7]), however, I think you should be aware of this and once again see whom are we dealing with.

Btw, Rovoam’s real name is Andrey Kirsanov (or Andrew Kirsanoff, depending on writing style). He owns (or works for) a Russian-language web-site http://www.vehi.net (which, btw, regularly gets lots of visitors). He also once said that he “currently live[s] in California (L.A. Agoura Hills)” (see, [8]) but this may not be true.

That’s all info about Rovoam. So, in case something happens to me, you know who’s the culprit ;-).

But seriously, as I said to Fred, I believe the ONLY way to stop this madness is unity of many editors against Rovoam and formal decision by ArbCom banning him from editing Wikipedia.

Also, on a human level, if to look at Rovoam not simply as a virtual troll and vandal but also a human being who does all of this behind his PC screen, I think, we would see a person who is in deep emotional crisis, who wants to prove to himself, to me and all all others, that he is not a “loser”, that he can “teach [anyone] a lesson” and show "them all" their place.

In the past, I have made some steps to mitigate the situation with Rovoam, calling him to stop and calm down ([9]; [10]) and even going as far as appeasing him ([11]; [12] to which Rovoam responded like this [13]) (moreover, these are examples from after the ArbCom decision, I've made much more appeals to him before the ArbCom decision). Therefore, now I am convinced that this person simply cannot be appeased, he cannot be treated as a discussion partner and above all, he cannot be allowed to edit Wikipedia. --Tabib 12:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Tabib the above email is best dealt with by the emailer's ISP. I recomend that you forward it to abuse@yahoo.co.uk and let them deal with it. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 14:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theresa. This is important advise which I will definitely follow, although, again, I want to repeat that I actually do not think the threat is real, but still this is a serious abuse.--Tabib 15:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Following this issue for a while now, I increasingly tend to believe that Tabib is having serious personal problems as reflected in his possible self assessment above, reading: " I think, we would see a person who is in deep emotional crisis, who wants to prove to himself, to me and all all others, that he is not a “loser”, that he can “teach [anyone] a lesson” and show "them all" their place. " . I recall vividly an incident, in which I was approached by Tabib off record (re "Safavids"), and where he tried to entice me to join him in unacceptable, unethical and unfair manner against other editors. This and the constant badmouthing of others and rallying of goodmeaning but disinformed ADMIN helpers is UNACCEPTABLE!! It is surely not the WIKIPEDIA spirit we are all living up to.--Deli-Eshek 18:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deli-Eshek, I am sorry to get such comments from you, which are actually on the verge of personal attack. I dont know what your motives/intentions are, but you literally claimed that when I was writing my thoughts about Rovoam ("deep emotions crisis" etc.) I was actually writing about myself, which is ridiculous. Let me remind you that it was Rovoam (and not I) who sent me this anonimous letter threatening to assasinate me (which didn't really cause me to experience an "emotional crisis", but gave me valuable info about Rovoam..) Doesn't this mere fact, as well the fact that Rovoam, despite being universally reverted by dozens of other editors all around Wikipedia, still keeps his vandalism and stubborn reverts, tell you something?.. You know, it doesn't take a Freud to portray the psychological portrait of this person, especially, if you've been knowing this person and seeing all his tricks for several months..

When I was writing my thoughts about the current psychological situation of Rovoam (at least, as I imagine it), my only purpose was actully to give a better idea or "food for thought", if you want, about how to deal with Rovoam. I am convinced that formal, OR informal, but strongly endosed, BAN against Rovoam is primarily for the good of this person himself, because the sooner this person realizes the whole senselessness of his actions, the sooner he will stop, reconcile with the situation and will return to his 'normal life'. As to me, I repeat once again, the primary driving force that makes me to continue my activity in wikipedia, is Principle. I simply do not want to retreat and allow the vandal to get along with his deeds. Unlike Rovoam, I dont have to "prove" anything, all it takes me is just to be there and point out to the vandalisms by Rovoam. As I said before many times, in a certain way, constant vandal attacks and sneaky and open vandalisms of various entries that I have created or significantly contributed to in the past, were actually the main reasons which defined my activity in Wikipedia and kept me constantly bind to this resource.

User:Deli-Eshek also advanced another allegation against me claiming that "[I] tried to entice [Deli-Eshek] to join [me] in unacceptable, unethical and unfair manner [?!] against other editors." My brief communication with this user is actually open and visible to all other editors, and you can judge by yourself the quality of such allegations. Pls, see Talk:Safavids as well as my message to Deli-Eshek (which I wrote in response to his post against another user with purpose of avoiding further protraction of unnecessary personal discussions in Safavids talkpage). So, you can judge by yourself whether I "enticed" Deli-Eshek to somethings that he alleges..(also available in User:Deli-Eshek). Sorry, if this "elaboration" about Deli-Eshek etc. made my message too long.--Tabib 15:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

p.s. btw, I just noticed that Rovoam was listed in Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community.--Tabib 15:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about this dispute, but I definitely see a lot of misuse and overuse of italics and bold tags! - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Request for temporary injunction against User:Alfrem

Due to the following response from User:Alfrem (see [14]) it appears that he will continue to revert against consensus on Libertarianism. I would like to request a temporary injunction from him editting this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 7 July 2005 09:02 (UTC)

Alfrem was wikistalking me earlier this evening, repeatedly reverting everything I did across several articles, including article talk pages and my talk page. He even put a politics template on libertarianism to get back at me, even though his purpose has been to remove references to politics. A temporary injunction seems like a really good idea Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 03:28 (UTC)

Give me a link to the arbitration request or page please Fred Bauder July 9, 2005 14:54 (UTC)

Yes, I see it. Drop a note to each of the other arbitrators if you feel they need to pay attention. Right now just one vote for acceptance, mine. Fred Bauder July 9, 2005 14:56 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 3RR. If he's still causing problems when he gets back, I will. Thanks for the advice, I don't really know how arbcom works. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:41 (UTC)

I have just blocked Alfrem for violation of the 3RR again, this time for 48 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Now the page is protected, thanks to his antics. I'm now requesting the injunction from Sannse, David Gerard, and Theresa Knott. Dave (talk) 17:00, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image use

Talk:Arthur Wellesley, 8th Duke of Wellington / User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse bring up a rather tricky situation of personal attacks, nubie biting, and Wikipedia:Image use policy concerns. If we had a wiki police department, I would file a report there. If the mediation commitee was known for its fast and effective response, I'd take the matter there. As is, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the matter should most properly be resolved. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 14:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that this problem is not growing, perhaps apologies all around will do? Fred Bauder 14:19, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Good luck with getting any apologies out of Sam. I've been trying for months. FeloniousMonk 22:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat less optimistic. I realy wish there was a wiki-911 emergency center. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 15:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In this case there was a center used, User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Personal_Abuse. It worked to alert Jimbo to the problem. But he is not always immediately available as he was this time. Fred Bauder 18:56, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

No doubt you do... FeloniousMonk 22:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for ArbCom Action re: RIL and Melissadolbeer — question for Fred, Sean, Sannse, David, Mark Theresa

On 09:26, 16 July 2005 RIL left a message for me on my talk page informing me that

"Melissadolbeer has opened a request for arbitration against you (at WP:RFAR). ~~~~ 09:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)"

[15]. Since I had no idea why Melissadolbeer would open a RfA against me, I went to the RfC page. As far as I can tell, it was not Melissa who named me as an object of her complaint, but RIL, at 09:23, 16 July 2005: [16] (the first time I am explicitly listed as an "involved party"). Needless to say, I find this very disturbing. If someone opens an RfC against me, I want to know why and as far as I can tell, the RfC does not explain why — so how can I defend myself? More importantly, who is opening an RfC against me? According to Ril, Melissadolbeer has filed the request. But going through the edit log for the RfC page I cannot find the instance where Meslissadolbeer filed a complaint against me. It seems that Ril himslf has filed the complaint against me. So I am left with two questions:

1. Why has Ril filed a complaint against me?
2. Why has Ril claimed that it was Melissadolber who has filed a complaint against me?

It seems to me that the whole RfC process here is being subverted. But in the meantime, I stand accused, and I am not sure by whom or why. This is not fair; this does not even approach due process. Please help sort this out. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:05, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your name isn't on the rfar anymore so hopefully it's sorted.I think the accusation was that you were a sockpuppet, which is pretty daft. Dont worry, you have nothing to defend. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Theresa, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Theresa took the words right out of my mouth. →Raul654 20:24, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hey! Let's get Everyking

I'm puzzled. What's the complaint? I followed the links provided and read the context. Wikipedia needs Everyking. TIAC. Paul Beardsell 10:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner does not like the way I will sometimes complain when he does something controversial, for example blocking someone for a long period of time (or forever) with little to no good reason. He also believes that one admin should not question another admin's actions, at least publicly, because he feels that we need to present a united front against those he considers trolls and problem users. So basically, as best I can tell, the point is that I need to shut my mouth and quit calling Snowspinner on his actions. Everyking 10:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner blocked me last week over a incorrect 3RR report filed by Jdforrester. --AI 18:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Shoot first, ask questions afterwards. Are you a Brazilian on a London tube train? Paul Beardsell 23:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I could be seen as being a little disingenuous and that was not my intention. I was not at all puzzled. I can see exactly what is going on. I was allowing Snowspinner the opportunity to justify his bringing of the case. I also expected he would not be able to do so and would probably choose not to reply. Not that time has run out yet. Paul Beardsell 11:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In another block (on my account) I explained to Snowspinner that the 3RR report filed on me was not correct, yet Snowspinner never replied and has still not addressed this with me. --AI 18:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

You've attempted dispute resolution. So you can now raise a RfAr. Paul Beardsell 23:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you make your point well, as ever. (If you made your points less well then Snowspinner and others would feel less sore.) Criticism is healthy. Criticism must be seen to be going on. Some really are in favour of there being a cabal, if there is not one already. That is exactly what you get when, in the words you use to summarise the argument, "He also believes that one admin should not question another admin's actions, at least publicly, because he feels that we need to present a united front against those he considers trolls and problem users." If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is most probably a duck. Substitude "cabal" for "duck". TIAC. Paul Beardsell 11:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

All you have to do is wear baking foil inside your hat, and we the cabal can't get at you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

See, this is the kind of attitude I'm in trouble for criticizing. Everyking 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think, EK, you might benefit from taking people's tongue-in-cheek comments as, well, tongue-in-cheek. I am certain Mel doesn't actually think there is a cabal, any more than I do. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 15:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't. He was trying to dismiss someone's views by comparing them with something absurd. Everyking 15:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think he was making a joke. It failed, at least to you. I found it mildly amusing. WP:AGF, right? Cheers, and keep up the healthy criticism! [[smoddy]] 15:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel apparently isn't looking into the facts, and maybe is just making a joke. This is like the 9/11 problem with intelligence: "Failure of imagination." I don't think admins should simply dismiss claims of a "cabal." Look at my dispute, look at Jdforrester's involvement in my dispute which involved David Gerard. I am still disputing Jdforrester's report, yet he accepted the arbitration in my case. --AI 18:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

A cabal is simply a conspiracy of the powerful not to engage properly with others. I know that it sounds tin hat paranoid to even use the word cabal but there is a lot going on here at Wikipedia that looks like the actions of a cabal. AI identifies some. Have a look also at the Tkorrovi vs Paul Beardsell (i.e. me) arbitration section in this article above: Practically no replies from the ArbCom. No member of the ArbCom publically disagreeing with disgraceful behaviour by two of their colleagues. No explanation offered, no excuses, not even a reasoned dismissal of my assertions. A conspiracy of the powerful not to engage properly with others. Snowspinner seems sometimes to be able to act as if there are no rules which bind him yet he escapes censure from the powers that be, never a word. Yet here Snowspinner is initiating another RfAr pop at Everyking and "they" are lining up enthusiastically to judge him but for what? The complaint is actually not specified. It's all very Soviet Russia. Kafkaesque. "Them"? Yes, those who act as if they are in cabal. Cabal or not, appearances are important. It doesn't look as if justice is about to be done. Rather we have the appearance of a conspiracy of the powerful not to engage properly with others. If it quacks like a duck... Paul Beardsell 23:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I really think you should consider the possibility that they didn't find Ambi and Grunt's conduct disgraceful in the least, and so saw no reason to repudiate it. Which is not cabalism - it's disagreement with you. Perhaps one could even call it criticism. Snowspinner 23:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A cabal is simply a conspiracy of the powerful not to engage properly with others. I am comfortable to enter into a discussion about Grunt's and Ambi's behaviour. But, caballistically, no one else is. But this is a side issue. Below Snowspinner says Everyking does not reply to his critics. Here Snowspinner leaves the substance of my above paragraph unanswered. Paul Beardsell 23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Paul, it is of course not my concern at all, but I just really don't understand what you want to achieve. My most selfless opinion is that siding with Everyking is not useful to you at all, but this is nothing more than my opinion, you just don't have to notice it at all and do whatever you think is best.Tkorrovi 17:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not "siding with Everyking" for the reasons I half guess you might be supposing but, on the other hand, maybe I am: I continue to find the meaning of your postings somewhat opaque. But for your information: I want a better Wikipedia. The tolerance of criticism would make a better Wikipedia. We need more Everykings. Now, Tk, have you edited any articles recently? I think you should do that rather than follow me around. Paul Beardsell 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not follow you around, I just looked at this page. And wrote my opinion, which I guess you should tolerate.Tkorrovi 00:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism is useful. But criticism is offered as a dialogue, with the intention of replying, discussing, and improving. Everyking doesn't answer his critics, except to insult people more. He's not acting in a way that improves Wikipedia. He's acting in a way that inflames tensions. And if Everyking's only use is his criticism, then I have to say, he's not very useful. Thankfully, that's not the case - he's a good editor, he does good RC patrol, and he cleans up vandalism. And any remedy that stopped him from these things would be wholly inappropriate. Snowspinner 22:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That you get worked up by Everyking is obvious but I think that is because you and he disagree and he makes his points much better than you. Everyking doesn't always answer his critics but often he does. He pays better attention to doing so than, e.g., some current and former members of the ArbCom. I do not see you raising an RfAr against them. Also, what qualifies as an insult seems to be depend on who says it, not on what is said. A challenge: For every "insult" you find of Everyking's I will find an equivalent or worse one from you or the ArbCom members who have indicated their willingness to judge whether Everyking is guilty of the secret charges against him. Whether or not the following is the case I do not know but I know what it looks like: It looks like you and the gang are lining up to give your antagonist a kicking. It looks terrible! It's bad for Wikipedia. Paul Beardsell 23:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree — it's as though there are two Everykings: one who generally does a very good job as editor, and whom one is glad to see around, whose edits one can trust, and another who has an enormous chip on his shoulder about admins, who attacks at the slightest provocation (or without it), and who refuses to discuss, defend, or retract. If we could get rid of the later and keep the former, Wikipedia would be a slightly happier place, at least. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

My two pennies' worth: Everyking is a devil's advocate, it's true, and some of the time his criticisms are quite on point. However, in the time that I have been seeing his comments on WP:AN/I I've gotten the impression that he is very quick to assume bad faith on the part of his fellow admins, which is not a particularly healthy attitude, socially or mentally. I agree criticism is healthy, but it has to be a constructive criticism. The problem, as I see it, is that some admins perceive EK's actions as taking potshots on the sidelines without putting his money where his mouth is, and again as a general impression I think some of that is justified. I would suggest that EK back off slightly on jumping down people's throats every time some blocked person makes a complaint and investigate thoroughly before buying a sob story, or stop acting as if everyone is against him even when they are not. When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you. --khaosworks 01:36, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you that my criticism isn't constructive. Anyway, most of what is being called criticism isn't really that: it's more interest expressed in the form of questions about situations, which are then assumed to be backing up Troll A or Vandal B, for reasons that I don't fully understand, except that my cynical side tells me it's like the school of thought (which we've sadly become more familiar with in recent years) that nobody can be a neutral party; if you say you're neutral, that means you're really an enemy. Take the recent issue of Irate and his blocking, first by Snowspinner and then permanently by Jimbo. I don't for a minute support Irate. I don't even know that much about him. I know two things: on a few occasions I've seen articles of passable quality written by him, and many other people accuse him of being vicious and uncooperative. These two things tend to balance out in my head and so I don't have a strong opinion about him. When I spoke up on the issue, it was not to support Irate: it was to suggest that anyone blocking Irate for a personal attack should go to AN first and discuss it with us to see if there's broad agreement that it is in fact a personal attack. I had two things in mind there: one, since I have a strong conviction that Wikipedia's positive development in administrative terms will require greater deliberation and community input and less subjective admin unilateralism (this is probably the main fundamental point of dispute between Snowspinner and I, by the way: he's a proponent of the school of thought that admins should ignore policy and just act according to their common sense—see his own user page—which I believe not only doesn't move us forward in terms of process, it actually moves us backward towards a style of administration most suitable for small communities, not even remotely compatible with the expanded nature of the project), I wanted to use this Irate question to push the idea of getting broader input into the matter, and to hopefully set a precedent for distancing ourselves for simple admin subjectivity; and two (more practically speaking), in my experience people's definitions of personal attacks vary widely, so for maximum fairness to Irate the decision should ideally not be left up to one admin.

That whole thing brewed up a big, long-winded argument. I have to conclude either that somebody didn't understand what I was saying, or they just wanted to get into an argument with me (it's become fashionable lately). I heard a lot of but the ArbCom said... which had nothing to do with what I was proposing. The fact that the ArbCom entitled admins to block unilaterally does not mean that's ideal. I also saw a lot of implications that I was trying to give Irate a pass. Once I saw the particular comment Irate was blocked for, I concluded that it was marginal but one could reasonably consider it a personal attack. But that whole point is purely academic, since I wasn't trying to give Irate a pass.

Sometimes I am not entirely constructive, I'll grant. But this is only partially my fault. Snowspinner has a particularly provocative way of asserting himself: he'll declare that people have "mysteriously disappeared forever" or "bang! shot on sight", and I find that kind of attitude, that sense that the block is trivial to him and he thought nothing about it, absolutely infuriating. So sometimes my irritation shows in those cases. Everyking 04:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice

I suggest that David Gerard displays an unseemly level of prejudice.

"Accept. This has gone on long enough - David Gerard 18:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)"

This indicates that a decision has already been reached. It calls into question David's intention to give Everyking a fair hearing.

Similarly, that Everyking has been found "guilty" before is being used against him.

"Regarding recusal: We went through this in Everyking 2. You didn't supply substantiation then either, despite repeated requests. You don't get to pick and choose arbitrators on a case against you, particularly when you've racked up three - David Gerard 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)"

Paul Beardsell 00:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The situation with Gerard is almost funny. He is so openly biased towards Snowspinner and against me that the idea that he wouldn't recuse is kind of incredible. And then, to top it off, he asks for "substantiation" for what he already knows! Now, maybe I could understand that coming from someone with an extremely rigid, formalistic judicial kind of approach, although it would still be silly; but Gerard is a vocal opponent of "wikilawyering". He's of the school of thought that, if it doesn't quite fit neatly into the box of policy, well, just smash in the corners and the edges and force it to fit. But apparently he's willing to take "wikilawyering" to a downright laughable extent when it suits him. I mean, look: Sannse recused, and Sannse and I don't get along at all; she has actually declared that she will not engage me in any further conversation or discussion whatsoever. But I would trust Sannse to be at least twice as neutral and objective on the matter as Gerard. Yet she recuses and Gerard won't. Everyking 04:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a court case, James. It's the forum in which the powerful gang up on anyone who questions one of their number. Perhaps you should have deleted the RfAr. Apparently, deleting pages you personally don't care for is okay, but questioning a guy who spends a great deal of time here throwing his weight around and very little actually contributing to the encyclopaedia is something unforgivable. Grace Note 04:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Defense against charge indicates guilt

It is not natural justice that Everyking's defence against Snowspinner's charges are used against him to somehow indicate his guilt. Snowspinner says in his statement:

"I also find it telling that Everyking's immediate response to this case, rather than being to defend or explain his actions, has been to make accusations against the first arbitrator to accept it."

This is not a reasonable criticism. That Everyking has a problem with the process does not make him guilty of anything.

Paul Beardsell 00:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, if you care so much, you should consider submitting evidence? Snowspinner 01:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Against you? Do you accept my challenge, above? Paul Beardsell 18:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The verdict is already decided; evidence would be pointless, and you know it, Phil. Everyking 04:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

That's news to me. I haven't even looked at the case yet. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

But, Theresa, what do think about the point I make? Snowspinner says that Everyking's response to the charge shows Everyking's guilt. I say it does not, but in any case it should not be taken into account: The case is about the charges made, not Everyking's demeanour during the case. What say you? Paul Beardsell 02:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)