Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was decided that I would have time to prepare a case before any movement started on the case...why is voting now going on? Everyking 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you preparing a case? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I said before I needed time. I need someone to advocate for me, and I've barely even started talking to people about that. Some very tentative discussions with one person. I also need time to gather evidence: there is tons of it in the history of AN/I which would disprove the case against me, but it's going to be hard, time consuming work digging it up. I would like for the case to be frozen until December, although I'm open to talking with the Arbitrators here in the meantime (what I see proposed gives me several questions already that I need to ask). Everyking 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand why it takes time to find an advocate. Why have you barely started talking to people about that?
Feel free to ask questions here.
Remember the case isn't over until the fat lady sings. Any initial voting can easily be changed in the light of any new evidence so don't fret over voting. We won't close the case until you have had a chance to put up a defence, but you do need to get on with it. Asking for the case to be frozen until December looks like stalling to me. How much of the "hard time consuming work" have you actually done so far? Any? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
None. That's why I need time. If the ArbCom is going to go ahead with voting I'm not even going to bother, though. All movement on the case should wait until my defense is ready. Everyking 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at it from our point of view for a minute. So far you have made zero progress towards presenting a defence. So you've basically just wasted the past couple of weeks then? At this rate of progress you never be able to present a defence. You have to make a start. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll make a point of it during November, then. There's a lot to work through. The odds against me are massive because of the personal animosities at work here and I need to be cut a lot of slack in the arbitration process in order for me to have anything approaching a fair chance. Who ever gets through arbitration with an acquittal? And that's people who don't have the ill-will of individual arbitrators to contend with. Everyking 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
November? There are still 5 days left in October! Make a start today. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There are now three votes! This is being pushed through in a hurry so as not to let me have any hope. Please, again, I ask you to freeze movement on the case. Everyking 05:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Administrators are not to misrepresent their own policy desires and beliefs as actual policies"

Cite one example of me doing that. I deny in the strongest possible terms that I have ever done that.

"Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on"

Inflated nonsense. I do not always investigate deeply into situations before commenting, but I am no different from virtually everyone else in that regard. What I do is comment based on what has been presented. That is simply me offering my thoughts, not an extensive investigation.

Moreover, is the ArbCom going to deal with the lifting of my Ashlee article restrictions in this case, or do I need to open another? Everyking 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, we will not freeze movement on a case. However we will not close the case until you have had time to present your defence.You must use this time to actually add evidence to the evidence page, or comment on the remedies in the workshop etc. You cannot simply do nothing and hope the problem will go away.

OK we'll cite the evidence
Oh but you are different from virtually everyone else in that respect. Most people do investigate before commenting, especially when that comment is a criticism of the action taken.
As far as I am concerned it's a seperate issue. You'd need to request we reopen that case. But let's get this case out of the way first though. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree with Theresa in this regard. As far as I am concerned, the mentorship was for a predetermined amount of time (6 months?). So at that point, all you have to do is request clarification about whether or not it should continue. Unless I hear bad things (which I don't think I will), I am OK dropping the mentorship and allowing you to edit those articles freely. →Raul654 15:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It was four months, and four months was up about a week ago. So I can put this up for clarification now? Everyking 19:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes. →Raul654 20:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


No way. This is a complicated issue and will take months to deal with adequately. The repeal of the mentorships, on the other hand, is very simple and could be done in a day. Ideally I'd like it to be a separate case which can be opened now; failing that a part of this case, but worst of all would be as a separate case after this one. Everyking 08:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if I am not allowed to discuss or even mention policy I will be an admin in name only. I won't be able to warn anybody who is violating a policy; I won't even be able to mention policy in the context of a standard article dispute, outside my capacity as an admin, apparently. Doesn't the ArbCom agree this is a little crazy? That would really set a precedent, the first case in which a person is prohibited from even speaking of policy. Everyking 09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what troubles me about it. How can he be a kind of half-administrator? I did not communicate to the rest of the committee that you had asked for time. I relied on our usual press of business to ensure that there would be a delay; and there was, although perhaps not as long as you might have wished. Everyone says you are a good administrator and you ought to remain an administrator, but somehow your chatter on Wikipedia forums is upsetting a lot of people. Fred Bauder 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing here which explains what an interpretation is. At first I assumed everything is an interpretation, so I would be prohibited from mentioning policy at all. But I don't know if that's what the arbitrators mean. I think they may be saying I can't state a view about policy that contradicts their own. If so, can they give any examples of how our views differ on policy? Because if not, this is absurd. Everyking 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] suggested RfC restriction

Related to the point about Snowspinner not being allowed to enforce any decision reached in this case, to remove another source of acriomy and potential acrimony I suggest that another remedy is added: Everyking is prohibited from contributing to or commenting about any RfC about Snowspinner. Snowspinner is prohibited from contributing to or commenting about any RfC about Everyking. Thryduulf 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me. As long as it's equal treatment; that's all I've ever asked for. Everyking 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The ban from the noticeboard

Just wondering if the ArbCom will consider allowing for an opening to apply for the ban to be lifted after a shorter period of time (say two months), as was done (as far as I can see) successfully in the Ashlee Simpson case. To me a whole year sounds like a pretty severe punishment, and I have seen Everyking come with many sensible contributions to the noticeboard as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the year because there was no specific limit. I see no reason why Everyking shouldn't apply for the ban to be lifted early if his behaviour has improved in the meantime. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I would be inclined to support a shorter ban or to be receptive to appeal, myself; his behavior has been less problematic of late. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

For the findings of fact, could I (strongly but politely) encourage the arbitrators to include diffs to support their findings? I'm particularly concerned about 2) Everyking has consistently and repeatedly offered his own misguided interpretations of policy and Wikipedia custom, on the Administator's noticeboard in particular. Diffs or examples would be helpful both to bolster community trust in the findings and to help clarify the precise meaning of 'misguided interpretations of policy'. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be fascinated to see the arbitrators just come up with evidence that I disagree with them on policy (as opposed to attitude and approach), let alone evidence that my views are misguided. Everyking 03:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Probation

You know what's funny? My admin actions are never controversial. I stay away from controversial admin actions like the plague. Yet now there's a move to put me on "administrative probation", as if I've done something wrong. Moreover, the people who I am in trouble for criticizing, namely Snowspinner, engage in controversial admin actions all the time. Hello? This is not sane. I am not trying to sound arrogant in saying this, but the honest truth is that I am the only one here who is saying anything that has any connection to the actual facts. The failure of the arbitrators to provide a shred of evidence for their claims only serves to confirm this.

Yet the arbitrators ignore me. I'm the defendant and my questions go unanswered. I ask the ArbCom to answer these questions:

  1. How do my views on policy differ from those of the arbitrators? In what ways have I "misinterpreted" policy?
  2. How does an "interpretation" differ from a plain statement, if at all? Can one make a statement about policy without it being an interpretation of policy?
  3. Can the ArbCom provide evidence for anything that it is claiming? Where are the cites?
  4. Who does the ArbCom believe is responsible for this case being before them? Me, although I strictly held to my agreement for two months and tried to ignore Snowspinner, or Snowspinner, who shattered the agreement by refusing to abide by the same voluntary restriction I had accepted—to not criticize the other except on the other's own talk page? Does the ArbCom feel it is fair to punish me for mildly critical, non-profane, honest questioning of controversial actions, which in any case mostly took place in a period ending three months ago, simply because Snowspinner will not refrain from criticizing me as I have refrained from criticizing him?

Everyking 05:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it."

This is Raul's claim, which contradicts my own claim that I am pretty good about this already and certainly do not need the ArbCom to mandate how thoroughly I research things. Surely he will be able to present some evidence proving that I entered into some discussion without the requisite knowledge? Actually, no, he'll need to present evidence that I've done this incessantly, and been wildly off the mark, to justify a ruling. Everyking 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"This is Raul's claim, which contradicts my own claim that I am pretty good about this already" - and every man in prison is innocent, right? I think I'll defer to Ashley Pomeroy's comment below as to whether or not you actually know what you are talking about. →Raul654 20:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
You've still got questions 1 through 4 to answer. Everyking 20:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my support for the measures regarding misinterpretation of policy. I did this after reviewing the last 2 months of comments you made to the administrator's noticeboard, where I noticed that there were not as many instances as I had expected (there were three, each one involving you making a [false] statement to the effect that "...but we can't block him for that.") Since there were so few incidents, I decided it was de minimis, changed my votes on those matters, and notified the other arbitrators of what I had found.
Insofar as whose fault it is, I'm not going to answer that question -- I'll let you decide that one. →Raul654 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I've already decided. I want to hear your opinion. What do you think about Snowspinner starting this case simply because he doesn't want to abide by the same voluntary restriction I agreed to? That, in effect, he wants to be free to criticize me without me being able to reply? Everyking 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I anxiously await a reply. Everyking 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Everyking should not be restricted from commenting on threads where he is criticized: Raul654 and others, would this also fall under "posting notices of his own actions" as specified in the relevant decision? I would interpret it that it does, and that he would be allowed to respond. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent summary of evidence

Well, here's one. You raise a legitimate complaint, but self-destroy it by admitting ignorance of the case in question. Here's another one in which you comment on the banning of a troublesome user with the words "I don't know a whole lot about the user, but I have seen his edits in passing and never thought they were anything but good". Here's one where you enter a discussion in order to tell the world that you don't know what the discussion is about. How about this, where - after commenting on the blocking of a trolling sockpuppeteer - you admit that "Since I know practically nothing about this person's editing, I can't say", an admission which would have been best put at the beginning of the discussion. Here, regarding this arbitration decision, you make a couple of dissenting comments before admitting that you hadn't even looked at the evidence page, despite having all the time in the world to do so. What was going through your mind? The impression I get is of someone who enjoys needling people and who is unable to take responsibility for his own actions; a typical teenager. This discussion seems to have provoked the re-opening of this third arbitration case, which was suspended for the first time back in August. My personal solution for all editors who think themselves indispensable would be to block them for a week, and see if Wikipedia collapses; if it does not, block them for another week, and see if Wikipedia collapses; and so on until Wikipedia collapses. We could have a betting game, based on how long Wikipedia is expected to survive without that user. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Who thinks him or herself indispensible? Everyking 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It could be that Ashley is speaking generally—some of our editors are touched by hubris on occasion. I prefer to think that he isn't alluding to this old chestnut; that was nearly a year ago. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that Wikipedia is not going to collapse without any single editor, but the removal of any good editor will make the project a little worse off. Everyking 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's narrative

OK, this is my start on "evidence". Actually it's just argument and reasoning, but it hits what's most important, I think.

The ArbCom and I are both quite convinced that we are right. What I wonder is whether we have any perspective left to see things accurately. How would a total outsider to the situation react to all this? I make a point of trying to see things from other perspectives, but I have no idea how successful I am at it.

One of the strangest things about this, from my perspective, is how utterly unnecessary it is. The ArbCom refuses to comment on it, but this whole case is due to nothing more than Snowspinner insisting on leaving his options open to criticize me, even though I agreed not to criticize him. Why on earth would the ArbCom feel it necessary, if they're looking at it honestly, to ban me from the AN pages? Why does all this have to be done forcefully when it seems like voluntary agreements would be so easy to reach? I don't insist on posting to those pages. I would like to do so on occasion, but if people have a problem with it then I'm fine with refraining from it. It doesn't really matter all that much to me. So why does a long ruling have to be crafted to forcefully remove me from the pages?

I don't understand the ArbCom's thinking. Where are they coming from with this? I don't mind explaining my views to whatever extent is necessary; can't they do the same? What exactly have I done that is seriously so objectionable? Apparently I've done something really awful, but it remains vague. What does the ArbCom think that I think? I'm tired of being cast as this obnoxious dissenter, or devil's advocate, or intractable gadfly who can agree to nothing, or whatever. That has nothing to do with how I perceive anything I do on Wikipedia, and in a way the character that others present as me seems pretty obnoxious to me too. To contradict that character: I think most administrators do a really good job. I think Wikipedia is run pretty well, and has done very well. I believe, more strongly than I believe in just about anything, in the idea of an encyclopedia by everyone and for everyone. We have a good model here. I am not trying to be a dissenter, because I don't have much dissent to raise.

What I critique, on occasions far less frequent than they are portrayed, are individual admin actions that I feel aren't done in the spirit of consensus. That is to say, admin actions that I feel are done unilaterally, on the borderline of policy, without coming to see what the community thinks about it. I think admins ought to be able to reach broad agreements on things. If you can't present a controversial action on AN/I before actually doing it (or even afterwards) and get broad support for it, then it probably shouldn't be done. Personally, I come at things with an attitude of moderation. Because I don't feel we are fighting for our very existence, I think we can take a easygoing and open approach. I do a lot of vandal reverting, but how many vandals do I block? Not very many (you can check my admin log about this), only the ones who are particularly severe or persistent. We aren't in the trenches fighting off enemy assaults, and I don't take that approach. We are doing fine. Many of these people we spend so much energy fighting are just a step away from becoming good contributors—sometimes they already are!

But I don't try to dissent for the hell of it. Often I keep my mouth shut. Often I make my criticisms a good deal weaker than how I actually feel. And sometimes I don't restrain myself so well, of course—but I don't make a habit of it, and I don't endorse it. I agree with actions all the time; usually I say nothing and silently approve, sometimes I make a point of agreeing, but of course that's worthless to the arbitrators—doesn't fit the character they pretend is me, I suppose. Or maybe they just don't know, because they haven't looked into it.

When is the ArbCom going to say or do something reasonable here? When is it going to propose some resolutions in proportion to the problems? I would be happy to chat with them about all this stuff in detail here, or in IRC, or even in e-mail individually. And I would be happy to accept some things that wouldn't be much in my interests. But the ArbCom doesn't even look down that road, much less take a step down it. How about it? Everyking 10:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing that really needs a reply from the arbitrators. I love how they will spend so much time voting but none to actually talk to the person who they are going to punish. I don't see how I have any chance at all if the arbitrators won't even read what I write and reply to it. Everyking 05:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example of the sort of behavior that merits the case. The previous post was up for less than 24 hours before you posted this self-reply, and your immediate assumption is that we are unwilling to respond to it, whereas we've been waiting for you to present evidence for some time now. Not all of us are quick and prolific writers (I certainly am not), nor do we check this page compulsively. I will be happy to reply once I have thought about an answer, now that I know of this post's existence, but a bit of assumption of good faith that we are trying to come to solutions in a reasonable manner would be appreciated; this isn't exactly a simple situation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I guessed I assumed most of the arbs would have it on their watchlists, and at least one of them would actually read it and respond to it. Everyking 04:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Er, that's rather what Mindspillage said—he has read it and will respond to it. Assuming bad faith (again!) doesn't help. Complaining that the case is proceeding too quickly and then being upset when the ArbCom members take their time to think through a reply seems a tad disingenuous. My understanding is that they all have real lives outside of Wikipedia, and some of them are quite busy. From a practical standpoint, I expect that any ArbCom members who wish to comment are likely to phrase their replies very carefully—your statement accuses them of various sorts of dishonesty, malice, and incompetence; I doubt that they would want to give you ammunition.
Looking at the history of the Proposed Decision and Workshop pages, I see only two edits in total since you posted your statement above (one involved removing a 'vote' placed by an anonymous IP editor, and one is a comment by Epopt on one of his own votes.) If they're not instantly replying to your statement, they're also not rushing headlong towards expanding the Proposed Decision. I'm not sure what response you'll get to your statement if you keep trying to use it as a tool to bludgeon them, however. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
"your statement accuses them of various sorts of dishonesty, malice, and incompetence" It does? Everyking 10:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Your characterization of the dispute as revolving solely around your interactions with Snowspinner is an oversimplification. It is true that many of your more problematic edits deal with him, but not all of it. It is also true that your behavior on the admin noticeboard has been less problematic of late.
I don't think anyone believe you've done "something really awful": more a series of incidents that on their own are relatively small but accumulated are a problem. It's not your opinions that are problematic, but the manner in which you air them. Your posts are frequently seen as confrontational and show an indication that you are not thoroughly familiar with the situations you comment on; you've even come out and said as much on occasion. There are a few admins with whom your interaction has been downright uncivil (and they are behaving horribly as well, but you rise right to their bait). As such, it contributes to a contentious atmosphere on the administrators' noticeboard. People hesitate to post in anticipation of being sniped at.
Criticism is not unexpected; a lot of reason for posting to the AN in the first place is to air actions that others would have reason to be critical of. I appreciate your attitude regarding the treatment of new contributors, and not treating vandalism control as a life-or-death fight at the expense of giving people the benefit of the doubt and treating them decently; I'd personally like to see more of that. (Others' trigger-happiness with the block button is another problem.) But having to be on the defensive from someone who seems willing to give chance after chance to people who have continually flouted community expectations and standards while not assuming good faith of his fellow admins—most of whom are decent people—is tiresome.
It's the sort of thing that burns people out on this project, particularly as usually by the time they've gotten to taking action and posting about it they've already been dealing with a problem that is wearing on their nerves. This isn't about your holding minority opinions, it's about the way you go about airing them. I'm glad to see you still think this is a pretty good project worth contributing to, and that you believe most of the people are doing a decent job—and from your prolific contribution history it doesn't surprise me. But I'd never guess it just by looking at your posts to the AN.
This isn't intended to be a gag for you, not an attempt to make you a second-class citizen. (And no, I personally don't support measures that allow others to criticize you while not letting you respond.) It's an attempt to push you toward finding methods of communication that do not involve immediately airing your concerns on a public forum while being either unnecessarily confrontational, uncivil, or uninformed. If you can show evidence of that—and again in recent weeks it's been much less of a problem—then I for one will happily support an early lifting of the restriction. You are an exemplary administrator in all other ways, and your stated intent to achieve consensus commendable, but this pattern of communication is enough of a problem that I do not see how we can do other than to find some sort of enforceable remedy to address it. TenOfAllTrades has a pretty good assessment of what we're trying to do—or at least what I'm trying to do. Some of this is my personal opinion of the evidence and the rest of the AC may not agree, but this is where I at least am coming from.
As a side note, in looking through your contributions, I noticed you opposed TenOfAllTrades' admin nomination citing an example of your poor interactions with him, and it left me scratching my head. From that example and others including this page here it seems as if you ought to consider him one of your greatest allies here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you mention the difference between the opinion and the expression of it. This is a distinction I argued at length with Raul the other night. I agreed with criticism that the expression of my views has sometimes been problematically hostile; I would be willing to accept a remedy on that basis, although I would think the ArbCom could take my word for it that I will improve about that without requiring a remedy (recognizing, of course, that for the ArbCom to accept a case and then let the accused off easy would possibly be seen by them as a loss of face). Raul, however, seemed to think that civility alone would not be sufficient. He argued that the views need to be logical to be acceptable, that he needs to be able to understand, in the context of his own manner of thinking, how I reached a conclusion even if he disagrees with the conclusion (he can step in here if he wants; I may not understand his views properly). This would be taking things to a new level if the ArbCom wanted to adopt it, I think. I will try to improve my tone, but I won't keep my mouth shut just because Raul doesn't think what I say is logical. I don't think I need to argue this at much length because I'm confident that the ArbCom would see it as absurd, or at least plainly unacceptable to the community, which values free exchanges of views.
That leads into something else: as it turns out, according to Raul, the notion that I am "uninformed", which the ArbCom has been heavily leaning on, is fundamentally based on the idea that no sane person could say what I say without being uninformed. I won't try to defend my sanity, but surely anyone can see that this is very poor logic (which, in theory, makes this view subject to censorship, right?). Everyking 10:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TenOfAllTrades' comment on narrative

In general, Everyking does great work on Wikipedia. His work in article space is superlative–utterly above reproach–and I doubt anyone would argue with that.

The problem arises where he critiques the actions of other administrators. There is nothing whatsoever wrong about commenting on the actions of other admins; we all should be watched, because we do have some pretty potent tools at our disposal (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and so forth). The trouble comes from the manner in which he brings his criticism. There are two problems, one or the other–or both–come into play in the incidents of concern.

  1. Failure to investigate situations before commenting. This is addressed thoroughly in Ashley Pomeroy's comments above. Taking an accusatory tone or demanding to know why WP:AN/I wasn't first consulted when an admin blocks a prolific troll, vandal, or sock isn't productive.
  2. Lack of civility in his criticism. This has been discussed at length. Primarily these incivil remarks are directed at specific admins with whom Everyking has a history of conflict. Right or wrong, the form of the criticism is more appropriate for starting a brawl than resolving a dispute.

Subjectively, WP:AN was a much less unpleasant and acrimonious–but still quite productive–place during Everyking's recent ceasefire and absence.

I don't claim to be able to read minds, but I get the impression that the ArbCom would like to impose a remedy along the lines of

  1. Everyking will be polite and courteous on the AN, and will read up on cases before commenting. He will attempt to resolve questions through private talk page discussion before raising a stink on AN; he will always assume that other admins–though fallible humans–are acting in good faith.
  2. Other editors will refrain from baiting or taunting Everyking. You know who you are. It's unseemly and unwelcome; it has no place here.
  3. In general, Everyking and other editors will refrain from being WP:DICKs. If you're not sure if you're in line with that policy, then you're probably breaking it. If other editors tell you you're breaking it, then you're definitely over the line.
  4. Violation of the above terms will result in
    1. Temporary banning from AN and its subpages.
    2. Extended banning from AN and its subpages.
    3. Short blocks.
    4. Extended blocks.

Unfortunately, such a remedy is difficult to craft. WP:DICK isn't formal policy. The parties to the Arbitration would tend to argue about all of the first three points, and whether or not they had violated them. (There was significant criticism by Everyking of his first two ArbCom cases because he felt that terms were insufficiently precise or too broadly interpreted.)

Left with that the ArbCom is taking the simplest, shortest route and seems to intend to ban Everyking from AN and its subpages. It's clear, it's unambiguous, it's enforceable, and it doesn't bar Everyking from doing the stuff that he does extremely well. If Everyking can suggest an alternative way to address these concerns, then I hope that the ArbCom would be more than willing to listen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I can agree with criticism that I am often not very civil. This is something I should improve about. Often I do have a sarcastic or accusatory tone. That comes from seeing things I consider wrong being done time and time again, but nevertheless it isn't good behavior. Everyking 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I don't like you saying that I've had a "ceasefire". No such thing. It is not like I'm holding back fire waiting for resumption of hostilities. I am simply trying to avoid commenting there in general, and when I do to be more moderate in tone, as a personal decision (not a tactical one). Everyking 10:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing?

Nov. 10 is much too soon to close. What's the rush? I'm not doing anything the ArbCom doesn't like. Give me a month or two to address each of the points against me in detail. Everyking 05:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A month or TWO? Sorry. No. You have until November 10th to provide an offer of proof that sets forth the evidence that you will submit. This offer of proof must explain how the evidence you will submit will materially alter our conclusions on the proposed decision page. If you do not produce an offer of proof by that date, I am going to move to close the case with the current findings and remedies as set forth in the proposed decision. Enough is enough. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
That's only two days away...how can I do all that in just two days? Even a month is tough, I have a job and I spend so much time editing too...but two days? For God's sake, give me two weeks and maybe I can do something. But two days isn't even funny. Everyking 05:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You've had four weeks already. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
But I haven't even started yet. Again I ask: why the rush? What am I doing that the ArbCom needs to immediately put a stop to? I've quit (voluntarily) doing what the ArbCom dislikes. If the ArbCom is still going to punish me over something I've stopped doing, it could at least give me time. Everyking 06:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
You are stalling. Stop "spend[ing] so much time editing" and devote some time to something considerably more important. ➥the Epopt 14:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm stunned. Editing is less important than tending to this petty little feud? Everyking 04:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise?

Okay...Everyking's remarks seem a tad disingenuous. He's had a month in which he's apparently done nothing, and now is asking for two more. On the other hand, Everyking has–as far as I know–for the last month refrained from the behaviour which led to this ArbCom case.

In lieu of enacting the remedies listed in the proposed decision, perhaps a compromise could be reached. Could I suggest that an appropriate temporary injunction be imposed? Something like the remedy in italics in the section above, perhaps. If an acceptable injunction can be written, the case can then be set aside. If there's no further trouble for–let's say–one year, the case can be closed. In other words, give Everyking as much time as he likes to prepare evidence or statements, but keep him on a parole while he does it. Set some specific threshold for reopening the case...perhaps say it should take three ArbCom members to 'pull the trigger', as it were.

For what it's worth, I sympathize to an extent with Everyking's difficulties—it's hard to cite a diff to prove that you didn't piss anybody off with an uninformed opinion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he has since the arbcom case began - just today, in fact. [1] and [2]. Phil Sandifer 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This arbitration case is about AN. The arbitrators have insisted it isn't about you. So those comments are irrelevant. Everyking 17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be agreeable to this. My proposal to Raul earlier was that I not post on AN or AN/I for two months, and then I will have a two month "probation" period in which I can post but will be banned from the boards again if I say anything uncivil. Of course, if these times are felt to be too short we can consider longer times. Everyking 17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Tenoftrades - we do not keep arbitration cases open ad infinitum. The whole suggestion is propesterous. It would dramatically increase our workload and it would be patently unfair to the people involved in the case. →Raul654 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I was actually hoping it might reduce your workload. You get to shuffle the whole matter off to the side for as long as Everyking behaved himself.
Of course, with the diffs cited by Snowspinner above, I agree that such a solution isn't going to work. If Everyking is going to be sniping at Snowspinner in defense of Xed's objectionable behaviour, he really doesn't seem to be making an effort. Damn. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
According to the decision the arbitrators are pushing, I can "snipe" at Snowspinner all day long if I want, just not on the AN pages. Besides, my original comment was not a personal attack on him at all; it was extending my sympathies to Xed, because it appears he is being treated wrongly, and then noting that I have a similar arbitration case brought by the same person. The second comment, OK, it was mildly, borderline personal attack-ish, but it was in response to Xed. It occurs to me that putting the more objectionable diff first, regardless of chronology, would be a rather clever tactic if you wanted to make someone look bad. Everyking 04:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
You should probably take a closer look at the decision - "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." →Raul654 04:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That isn't what I was doing. I was characterizing him generally. Does anything count as an action? Meaning I can make no references to any admin in any context? Everyking 05:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Can we clarify this, please? If this is going to be the interpretation we use, this extremely broad interpretation, then I am very worried. My ability to engage in plain discussion will be severely restricted. Everyking 15:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have clarified it to read: "Everyking is prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions". To clarify, you are allowed to discuss edits ("editorial actions") made to articles by other admins; you are not allowed to discuss other actions (which includes: blocking/unblocking users and protecting/unprotecting pages). →Raul654 15:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The first rule about the Cabal is "Don't talk about the Cabal". -- Netoholic @ 16:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Would starting an RfC or raising an arbitration case qualify as an editorial action here? Phil Sandifer 17:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read the decision before asking for clarifications on it. - it explicetely permits Everyking to do that. →Raul654 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No, no - I apologize, I wasn't clear. If I raise an arbcom case, is that something Everyking is permitted to comment on? I know that he is free to raise cases - but is he free to comment on other people's raising cases? Phil Sandifer 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Under a strict reading the decision, such an action (you filing a request for arbitration against someone other than Everyking) would not be editorial (in that it is not an edit to an article). Thus, Everyking would be prohibited from discussing it (your action) anywhere except on your talk page, an RFC (against you, Snowspinner), or an RFAr (against you, Snowspinner). →Raul654 19:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Phil Sandifer 21:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't address general characterizations. Everyking 19:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"General characterizations?" →Raul654 19:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Like the comments to Xed which you claim I could not make under the ruling. Everyking 19:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Presuming you mean this one - yes, comments like that are prohibited. →Raul654 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Then you probably need to rewrite the ruling so that it actually says that. Everyking 01:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It does say so quite clearly. In the comment I cited, you were criticizing snowsinner for actions not related to editing articles, on a page that was not (1) snowspinner's talk page, (2) an RFC against snowspinner, or (3) an rfar agaisnt snowspinner. Such comments are flatly prohibited by this decision as it currently stands. Therefore, no rewrite is necessary. →Raul654 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
To nitpick a bit, this means he also can't make such criticisms on his very own talk page, or perhaps on a user talk page of someone who Snowspinner has wronged. Everyking's been accused of commenting unhelpfully on a very public noticeboard... I don't see where his comments on private talk pages, especially his own, needs to be curtailed. That all seems un-wiki. -- Netoholic @ 03:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"this means he also can't make such criticisms on his very own talk page, or perhaps on a user talk page of someone who Snowspinner has wronged" - Yep, that's pretty much the purpose of this decision. →Raul654 04:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Mark, what have you become? -- Netoholic @ 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of this decision is to stop EK's seemingly neverending carping against administrators. Except for the three very specific locations laid out in the decision, he is not to do it anywhere, for any reason. Sorry, but I don't find the "Oh my god! Everyking cannot criticize Snowspinner on the talk pages of people whom Snowspinner is persecuting" argument very persuasive. So yes, it really is that simple. →Raul654 06:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Mark, please point out which FoF or even one piece of evidence that shows Everyking used a user talk page to disparage another administrator. Most people here consider user talk pages somewhat special... before you cross the line and silence Everyking's voice in this way, I'd at least like you all to consider this point. Accusations of cabalism aside, censorship is a very unhealthy direction to go in, and you're not doing it for any reason supported by EK's past behavior. -- Netoholic @ 14:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
How about this comment he made on Xed's talk page yesterday? →Raul654 19:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody involved in this arbitration, or anyone else except you, think that sort of comment posted on a single user's talk page is either inappropriate or excessive. It is not a personal attack - it is an opinion he voiced on the talk page of someone who probably agrees with his conclusion. Unless you are willing to say that Everyking's comment is factually wrong AND say that his right to voice that opinion on such a non-public page is morally wrong, then you should stop with this line of oppressive thinking. -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so you ask a question, you're shown a diff that shoots your argument to shreds, so you backpedal and try to retroactively redefine the question. You said "please point out ... one piece of evidence that shows Everyking used a user talk page to disparage another administrator.". The comment above does just that - disparrage Snowspinner. And we're not exactly digging around in ancient history -- it was less than 24 hours old when you asked your question. The fact of the matter is, the whole reason for this arbitration was his constant carping at other administrators' actions. (And just for the record, it's a borderline personal attack which closely mirrors the borderline personal attacks cited in the finding of fact in this decision) So, now shown to be flatly wrong about him not disaparranging other users on user talk pages, you are trying to play it off as not being a personal attack, a debatable claim at best. Sorry, I don't buy your attempt to soft-pedal his trouble-making. →Raul654 04:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
"shoots your argument to shreds" - that is one of the most laughable comments you've made here. The key part of my request to you was to show one piece of evidence (i.e. from the Evidence page). I'd again like to point out that the complaints raised in this Arbitration were about EK using the Administrators' Noticeboard to disparage other admins -- it was not a blanket attempt to stifle his ability (or right, depending on what century you live in) to speak out. I still want you to stop trivializing this and tell me, him, and the rest of this community that you that Everyking's comment is factually wrong AND say that his right to voice that opinion on such a non-public user talk page is morally wrong. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather disturbing to see that the decision is being manipulated against me even before it is finalized. You are defining it by what it is not, instead of what it is. This makes it much easier to stamp a prohibited status on anything you don't like. Everyking 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Before you close

Before you close, can someone tell me what evidence on the evidence page is being used to support FoF 6 regarding me? I see no evidence on the page or cited in the FoF relevent to the claim that I have baited EK. Phil Sandifer 15:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You tend to focus your attention on him. Let others worry about him for a bit. Fred Bauder 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that - I have no intention of enforcing the ruling, and I agree that I shouldn't. I'm just, I think understandably, somewhat aprehensive about an arbcom finding of misconduct on my part, which serves as an open invitation to trolls to continually accuse any action they don't like of being "baiting" - something Xed has already done, for instance, and the case hasn't even closed yet. Phil Sandifer 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, perhaps you should have just accepted a fair voluntary arrangement, then...you think? Everyking 15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
That FoF is perhaps the best thing to come out of this affair. -- Netoholic @ 16:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Then by all means, submit a piece of evidence that shows it to actually be true. Phil Sandifer 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
All right, here is a quick selection of comments you posted which were clearly designed to bait Everyking:
-- Netoholic @ 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
What's funny is I don't think I've ever accused him of "policing" others' edits, in principle: keeping an eye on others' edits and reacting appropriately to them is not something I consider bad. Going around and reverting everything another person does out of personal animosity, yes, that's bad, but of course I've never done that to Phil. Everyking 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - and if the finding were one of failure to assume good faith, undue attention, or even, honestly, of a deficiency in civility, I wouldn't object - but all of those were comments made in the course of a dispute with Everyking - generally one in which he entered into the dispute. That's not baiting. If Everyking comes to a dispute I'm involved in and begins making accusations, responding to them is not baiting. I'll admit to hostility - but baiting is a specific accusation. Phil Sandifer 21:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the specific accusation, using FoF 6's wording is that you "have made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior". I think the diffs I pointed out satisfy that assertion. -- Netoholic @ 03:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK?

OK, so what do I need to do to get the decision delayed beyond tomorrow? If I present a diff as evidence, will that suffice? Everyking 15:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Present evidence which convinces at least one arbitrator that a (nontrivial) change in the decision in necessary. →Raul654 18:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
But they will need time to consider it. Everyking 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll settle for an offer of proof for evidence that, if truthfully presented, would change the decision. You can come up with the evidence later. What will this evidence prove, and how will it alter our decision? Kelly Martin (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Kelly. I am witholding my own vote to close until tomorrow.Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

On my talk page, Theresa set a Nov. 11 deadline. So I should at least get one more day. Everyking 23:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If the 24 extra hours means so much to you, I'm fine by it, since I see that's indeed what she said. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

So when will I get a chance to appeal? The decision says nothing about this. Surely I will have that option after a certain length of time has passed?

Also, I object to the decision that Calton and Radiant have been provoking me. That's silly, because I have no serious disagreements with those editors and no desire to see them accused of anything. There is only one editor who actually deserves censure here, and he's been exempted from blame. Everyking 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Considering the ArbCom's own time limit, they probably need to get moving on answering this pretty quickly. Everyking 10:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The ArbCom should be ashamed of itself for not answering my questions and trying to let the clock run out. This whole thing has been an extraordinarily unfair and shameful process. Everyking 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
(Just for the record) I would have responded to Everyking's question already, but in this case I cannot because I do not agree with that aspect of the ruling (as indicated by my oppose vote) →Raul654 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
What aspect? There are two different issues. Everyking 20:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Also, I object to the decision that Calton and Radiant have been provoking me." Presumably this is a reference to FOF 6, "Calton and Radiant! have made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior." I cannot defend this FOF to you because I do not agree with it. →Raul654 20:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
What about the appeal issue? Everyking 21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

James, in the almost 4 weeks since this case re-opened you have made over 2300 edits; perhaps, in hindsight, it would have been wiser to spend some of that time responding to the case, rather than waiting until yesterday to offer to "present a diff as evidence" in order to "get the decision delayed". Regardless, it hardly seems reasonable to fault the Committee for your own inaction. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been responding. It's the ArbCom that has had so little to say.
What about the appeal issue? I don't see how this can be closed when that hasn't been dealt with yet. Everyking 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration committee decisions don't have to include an appeal option (in fact, most do not). We include them on the occasions when we think an editor has a good chance of reforming before the decision has been executed in its entirety. Since no arbitrator has proposed one, you can safely presume that no arbitrator thinks that you fit that criteria. →Raul654 02:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Which is completely insane because I already stopped before the ArbCom made its decision. What happens if I appeal after two months? Everyking 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
You can file an appeal in the form of a request for clarification; whether or not we give it any weight depends very heavily on you convincing us that you've reformed (bearing in mind that talk is cheap). →Raul654 04:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
But I've already stopped doing what you object to (and you know "reformed" is provocative). If I just keep on not doing it, then I get an appeal? Everyking 04:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
If you have indeed stopped doing what the Committee objects to then its decision should have absolutely no impact on you, nor discomfit you in any way - so why would you object or want to appeal? Jayjg (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
...Because I want to be able to comment on the AN pages and comment on the actions of other administrators as is suitable. Everyking 19:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The Committee found that you weren't able to make "suitable" comments on those pages. Your response makes it clear that you, in fact, do not want to "keep not doing it", but would rather like to be allowed to "do it" again. That is precisely why the ruling is necessary. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Your comments betray a staggering ignorance of the situation, Jay, which might be cause for an ArbCom case against you. What I am willing not to do, as I've repeatedly stated, is make uncivil comments. I even engaged in some healthy self-criticism about that. What I do want to do is post on the AN pages with my views as an administrator, keeping more closely within the bounds of civility. I was already doing that before the ArbCom ruling, in fact, so I'd just like to resume that. Everyking 04:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
If the issue had only been about civility your response might have carried some weight (though your comment itself shows a disturbing lack of civility). However, one of the primary findings against you was that Everyking repeatedly engages in critical remarks, which could fairly be characterized as sniping, regarding the actions of other administrators and the Wikipedia arbitrators in Wikipedia forums. Often he has not adequately researched matters before commenting on them. Decisions are frequently characterized as unfair, often of the basis of technical objections which have little basis in Wikipedia policy. Since you still fail to even acknowledge that this is a problem, it is apparent that you have no intention of desisting from doing this in the future. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Responding

I have been responding

I decided to look at the Everyking's edits and edit histories for this case, and found the following:

Among the last one, there is this, from 15 October:

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 [emphasis mine]. Everyking 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Which means he originally ASKED for a month, which he, in effect, has already gotten.

In addition, I can't find any edits in his contribution history showing that he sought (publically, at least) any assistance whatsoever over the last four weeks, nor any sign that he's used a temp page for organizing a defense.

So he's essentially gotten the time he actually asked for, and hasn't done anything with it.

If I missed something obvious, let me know.--Calton | Talk 02:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the case is officially closed now. →Raul654 03:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh. That's something pretty obvious, isn't it? --Calton | Talk 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Just making sure you saw it. You posted so quickly after I closed it that I thought you might have missed it. →Raul654 03:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principle

  1. Arbitrators are expected to have some modicum of understanding of a situation before punishing the people involved in it.

What do you say? I mean, so far I've had three cases against me founded in total ignorance on the part of the arbitrators. I say this calls for censure. Everyking 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)