ArbCom votes to uphold EK "restraining order" Options

[everyking]

On January 1, brimming with hopes for the new ArbCom, I filed an appeal at RfAr requesting an end to the sanctions I've been under since 2005. Those sanctions include a "restraining order" barring me from interacting with Phil Sandifer, because I had the nerve to criticize some of his admin actions back in mid-2005. This restraining order was imposed after a previous, voluntary agreement earlier in 2005 was torpedoed by Phil's insistence on continuing to comment about me even after I had agreed to stop commenting about him.

Phil replied to the appeal by attempting to associate me with his police incident, based on my WR participation (lest anyone forget, he is banned from WR for trolling); he also claimed that, through my participation in the relevant WR thread, I had some relationship to the ED article created about him--and therefore I am somehow responsible in some indirect way for harming his job prospects and his reputation with his students.

Two and a half years ago, on Wikipedia Review, there was a thread that led to somebody - I do not know who - calling the police near where I live with a complaint that I might be murdering homeless people. This resulted in my being subject to harassment and invasion of privacy by the police. In the course of the thread, it was speculated that it would be possible to either drive me out of my PhD program or off of Wikipedia.

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

These efforts - which have continued past this thread - have genuinely painful consequences for me, including the first Google hit on my name - found whenever a prospective employer or one of my students Googles me - is a libelous ED page stemming largely from the results of the thread Everyking was an active participant in.

This, combined with the fact that Everyking's prohibition against commenting on me stemmed from the fact that he was aggressively wikistalking me. And that since that prohibition was put in place, he has constantly attempted to get out of it or have it weakened.

I request that the arbcom does not lift this prohibition. I do not care about the others, however, I request that, given the extreme toxicity of his past actions with regards to me, this basic level of protection for me be extended. I would further ask that the arbcom render this matter closed and to be reconsidered only by Jimbo so that I do not have to, every few months, worry about whether this much-needed protection is going to be brought to an end.

Apparently the ArbCom was moved by those accusations, because it decided, by a vote of 9-0, to keep the restraining order in place indefinitely. The ArbCom was apparently not moved by my repeated requests to be allowed some dignity and restored to the status of an ordinary editor in good standing. I presented three alternative ideas for resolution which were completely ignored by the ArbCom: "1) a mutual restriction on both Phil and myself; 2) the removal of the restriction on myself; 3) a private arrangement under which both of us would avoid interaction except with the prior agreement of the arbitrators." Nor was the ArbCom moved by the arguments of several other editors in favor of lifting the restriction, although perhaps it found merit it the argument offered by Tony Sidaway:

The sanctions serve as a deterrent. Lest those who would go to external sites and try to subvert Wikipedia should prevail.

So the lesson here, I suppose, is that if you had the misfortune to think it was all right to criticize certain admin actions in 2005, you will keep paying for it for years, perhaps for the rest of your life, and you will always be treated as a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals. What's most incredible is that there is no chance the original case against me would ever even be accepted by the current ArbCom--no one would be subjected to arbitration over such a preposterous "offense" today--yet the sanctions associated with that case are upheld here in 2009.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Cedric]

*sigh* EK, when will ever you ever learn? "Winning" on Wikipedia has nothing whatever to do with good encyclopedia writing or loyalty to "the project". IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME. Phil is better at playing at martyrs than you are, which is why his "win" continues to be protected.

As for the infusion of new arbs, that was just so much rearranging of the decks chairs on the Titanic, as it was in all years past and will be in all years hence until WP finally implodes.

[everyking]

*sigh* EK, when will ever you ever learn? "Winning" on Wikipedia has nothing whatever to do with good encyclopedia writing or loyalty to "the project". IT'S ALL ABOUT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME. Phil is better at playing at martyrs than you are, which is why his "win" continues to be protected.

It's not that I haven't "learned"; I've been complaining about that for years. But knowing it to be true doesn't mean I'm not going to argue against it and try to change it.

[Moulton]

It's a Carrollian Chess Game. You can't change it. Like Jumanji, you have to play the game to the end.

In this case, the script is well known. It's a Classical Dostoevskian Drama.

[Cedric]

It's not that I haven't "learned"; I've been complaining about that for years. But knowing it to be true doesn't mean I'm not going to argue against it and try to change it.

I stand corrected. It would appear then that the subject of your unfounded optimism is not the way Wikipedia actually works, but rather its capacity for reform. While I would agree that WP is not inherently beyond reform, I am quite convinced (as you know) that WP shall never experience any effective reform for the reasons I stated here.

[SirFozzie]

I said it there, I'll say it here. EK. Let it go. Stop beating your head against the wall. The fact you're so strenuously fighting for the right (apparently) to resume a three+ year grudge against someone else doesn't fill me with confidence. You're in good standing. The only remedy is for something you JUST CANNOT LET GO. Deal with the 99.99% of Wikipedia that ISN'T your past grudge.

Sheesh.

[Random832]

SirFozzie is making insinuations about EK's motives in response to me bringing this up.

Oh, wait, I see you're doing it here too. whatever.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[SirFozzie]

Random: I just think it needs to be let go. EK (and now you) is taking this personally, and it's nothing like that.

[everyking]

I said it there, I'll say it here. EK. Let it go. Stop beating your head against the wall. The fact you're so strenuously fighting for the right (apparently) to resume a three+ year grudge against someone else doesn't fill me with confidence. You're in good standing. The only remedy is for something you JUST CANNOT LET GO. Deal with the 99.99% of Wikipedia that ISN'T your past grudge.

Sheesh.

Did you read my appeal? I don't want to pursue a grudge with Phil; I don't want anything to do with the guy. I argued in favor of a mutual restriction, which would have had the same practical effect, but would have treated the matter in a fair and neutral way without endorsing Phil's claims of "wikistalking". A one-sided restriction is a scarlet letter that condemns one side and acquits the other. Is it so remarkable that I "just can't let go" of something like that?

[SirFozzie]

You're not being condemmed (as much as you'd like to use colorful language to describe the issue, it's just not fitting) you're just being told to let things go, and deal with the 99.99% of Wikipedia that isn't your past grudge.

[dtobias]

As for the infusion of new arbs, that was just so much rearranging of the decks chairs on the Titanic, as it was in all years past and will be in all years hence until WP finally implodes.

I'd rather rearrange deck chairs on the Poseidon, so I get to see them flipped upside down.

[Peter Damian]

Two and a half years ago, on Wikipedia Review, there was a thread that led to somebody - I do not know who - calling the police near where I live with a complaint that I might be murdering homeless people. This resulted in my being subject to harassment and invasion of privacy by the police. In the course of the thread, it was speculated that it would be possible to either drive me out of my PhD program or off of Wikipedia.

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

These efforts - which have continued past this thread - have genuinely painful consequences for me, including the first Google hit on my name - found whenever a prospective employer or one of my students Googles me - is a libelous ED page stemming largely from the results of the thread Everyking was an active participant in.

This, combined with the fact that Everyking's prohibition against commenting on me stemmed from the fact that he was aggressively wikistalking me. And that since that prohibition was put in place, he has constantly attempted to get out of it or have it weakened.

I request that the arbcom does not lift this prohibition. I do not care about the others, however, I request that, given the extreme toxicity of his past actions with regards to me, this basic level of protection for me be extended. I would further ask that the arbcom render this matter closed and to be reconsidered only by Jimbo so that I do not have to, every few months, worry about whether this much-needed protection is going to be brought to an end.

On the face of it, these accusations look terrible and if correct, or if unmitigated, would justify the '9-0'. Presumably there are mitigating circumstances or corrections that need to be made to the unvarnished account? And if there, was there evidence that Arbcom looked at these?

My impression of my recent RFAR was that, while it was successful for me, did not involve looking at any of the evidence I had carefully prepared, and and was purely a matter of politics.

I'm afraid I haven't looked at the details of your case.

[everyking]

You're not being condemmed (as much as you'd like to use colorful language to describe the issue, it's just not fitting) you're just being told to let things go, and deal with the 99.99% of Wikipedia that isn't your past grudge.

Unfortunately, the restraining order has real effects on my Wikipedia activities which you don't seem to appreciate. When I run for RfA, people will say "he needs to get his ArbCom sanctions lifted first, then come back". In the past, when I wanted to review deleted articles after AfDs, I was told that I could not be trusted with the text because I was "not a user in good standing". On another occasion, Phil nominated a bunch of 2004 election controversy articles for deletion, and I wanted to vote, but because the ruling did not specify whether that was allowed, I could not do it--even though my only purpose was to discuss the articles, not the nominator. Does this apply to all processes and discussions initiated by Phil? I have to assume so, because if I make the wrong interpretation I can be blocked at any time, without any warning or consideration--that's the kind of treatment you get as a fifth-class, ArbCom sanctioned editor. Who knows when you'll slip and do something that contravenes someone's interpretation of the restriction, and then they bring the hammer down on you?

Two and a half years ago, on Wikipedia Review, there was a thread that led to somebody - I do not know who - calling the police near where I live with a complaint that I might be murdering homeless people. This resulted in my being subject to harassment and invasion of privacy by the police. In the course of the thread, it was speculated that it would be possible to either drive me out of my PhD program or off of Wikipedia.

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

These efforts - which have continued past this thread - have genuinely painful consequences for me, including the first Google hit on my name - found whenever a prospective employer or one of my students Googles me - is a libelous ED page stemming largely from the results of the thread Everyking was an active participant in.

This, combined with the fact that Everyking's prohibition against commenting on me stemmed from the fact that he was aggressively wikistalking me. And that since that prohibition was put in place, he has constantly attempted to get out of it or have it weakened.

I request that the arbcom does not lift this prohibition. I do not care about the others, however, I request that, given the extreme toxicity of his past actions with regards to me, this basic level of protection for me be extended. I would further ask that the arbcom render this matter closed and to be reconsidered only by Jimbo so that I do not have to, every few months, worry about whether this much-needed protection is going to be brought to an end.

On the face of it, these accusations look terrible and if correct, or if unmitigated, would justify the '9-0'. Presumably there are mitigating circumstances or corrections that need to be made to the unvarnished account? And if there, was there evidence that Arbcom looked at these?

My impression of my recent RFAR was that, while it was successful for me, did not involve looking at any of the evidence I had carefully prepared, and and was purely a matter of politics.

I'm afraid I haven't looked at the details of your case.

I replied to him as part of the appeal, but I'll run through it a bit anyway. Phil used to have a blog in which he wrote short stories. One of the stories, narrated from a first-person perspective, was about murdering homeless people. This aroused some concern (it was not necessarily obvious that the blog story was fiction), and someone called the police (not me). The police visited Phil as a result, although nothing else came of it. (Phil tried to set himself up as a martyr for free speech on the Internet after that.)

I commented, along with a bunch of other people, in the WR thread about that incident. In Phil's mind, this somehow makes me complicit in "police harassment", as well as somehow indirectly responsible for the ED article about him. It's completely absurd.

[Random832]

And if he actually dared to ask for permission to do any of these things, that'd go in the evidence file as "constantly attempted to ... have it weakened."

[Moulton]

The world is not a Just Place. It's just a place.

Wikipedia mirrors the world.

[GlassBeadGame]

Phil replied to the appeal by attempting to associate me with his police incident, based on my WR participation (lest anyone forget, he is banned from WR for trolling); he also claimed that, through my participation in the relevant WR thread, I had some relationship to the ED article created about him--and therefore I am somehow responsible in some indirect way for harming his job prospects and his reputation with his students.

Two and a half years ago, on Wikipedia Review, there was a thread that led to somebody - I do not know who - calling the police near where I live with a complaint that I might be murdering homeless people. This resulted in my being subject to harassment and invasion of privacy by the police. In the course of the thread, it was speculated that it would be possible to either drive me out of my PhD program or off of Wikipedia.

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

These efforts - which have continued past this thread - have genuinely painful consequences for me, including the first Google hit on my name - found whenever a prospective employer or one of my students Googles me - is a libelous ED page stemming largely from the results of the thread Everyking was an active participant in.

This, combined with the fact that Everyking's prohibition against commenting on me stemmed from the fact that he was aggressively wikistalking me. And that since that prohibition was put in place, he has constantly attempted to get out of it or have it weakened.

I request that the arbcom does not lift this prohibition. I do not care about the others, however, I request that, given the extreme toxicity of his past actions with regards to me, this basic level of protection for me be extended. I would further ask that the arbcom render this matter closed and to be reconsidered only by Jimbo so that I do not have to, every few months, worry about whether this much-needed protection is going to be brought to an end.

This is an outrageous substitution of innuendo for evidence. Any competent forum would specifically reject this "offering" and indicate that it is an unacceptable salad of guilt by association and rumor. "More prejudicial than probative" is the usual way of summing up this type of thing. The sanction itself, self-styled as "a restraining order," places an undeserved stigma on Everyking's head.

If I recall correctly "Phil" was some kind of graduate student with teaching responsibilities who wrote unsettling fiction about snuffing out people. Certainly not a crime, except perhaps against literature. AFAIK no one used any misdirection or even exaggeration in relating this to authorities. The police just thought it might be prudent, even on a pre-UV campus, to look into the matter. If he had a problem with this he should get counsel and go after the law enforcement officers he asserts "violated his privacy." None of this has anything what-so-ever to do with Everyking.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

You know, what did happen to that topic? I can't seem to find it in search...just the reaction topics.

[Cedric]

On the face of it, these accusations look terrible and if correct, or if unmitigated, would justify the '9-0'. Presumably there are mitigating circumstances or corrections that need to be made to the unvarnished account? And if there, was there evidence that Arbcom looked at these?

My impression of my recent RFAR was that, while it was successful for me, did not involve looking at any of the evidence I had carefully prepared, and and was purely a matter of politics.

I'm afraid I haven't looked at the details of your case.

I replied to him as part of the appeal, but I'll run through it a bit anyway. Phil used to have a blog in which he wrote short stories. One of the stories, narrated from a first-person perspective, was about murdering homeless people. This aroused some concern (it was not necessarily obvious that the blog story was fiction), and someone called the police (not me). The police visited Phil as a result, although nothing else came of it. (Phil tried to set himself up as a martyr for free speech on the Internet after that.)

I commented, along with a bunch of other people, in the WR thread about that incident. In Phil's mind, this somehow makes me complicit in "police harassment", as well as somehow indirectly responsible for the ED article about him. It's completely absurd.

Now we are getting closer to what really happened back in 2006. The real reason that EK got pilloried (other than the fact that he sucks at playing at martyrs) was that he was "ZOMG! A WR MEMBER/NEO-NAZI OUT TO DESTROY THE WIKI! AAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHH!" Because, as everyone knows, we are all a bunch of trolls, harassers, outers, spammers, stalkers and torturers of helpless kittens.

(IMG:http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7735/kittenchasedbygruesph7.jpg)

Somey and HK close in on their latest victim

Ah yes! There is nothing like the smell of fresh roasted wiki-martyr in the morning! Why, I myself am responsible for the persecution of at least 150 wiki-martyrs.

(IMG:http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/3641/jonlovitzhw7.jpg)

"Did I say '150'? What I really meant was . . . 15,000

Yeah! 15,000! That's the ticket!"

[Eva Destruction]

You know, what did happen to that topic? I can't seem to find it in search...just the reaction topics.

Here

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Peter Damian]

[...]
I commented, along with a bunch of other people, in the WR thread about that incident. In Phil's mind, this somehow makes me complicit in "police harassment", as well as somehow indirectly responsible for the ED article about him. It's completely absurd.

OK what you say in the snipped bit sounds very plausible, but what about

Everyking was an active participant in this thread, regaling it with speculation on my mental state.

Also, did you feel that the arbcom read carefully your reply to these allegations?

[edit] I just found this.

To be fair to Phil, his blog is clearly intended for literary/artistic purposes and I'm sure a claim that it's "terroristic" wouldn't be taken seriously for a second. I will grant that it could be something of an insight into his mind that he would write that kind of thing, but I don't need his weird musings to tell me there's something wrong with his head; I've been pretty sure of that for a good while now.

But that seems pretty mild, particularly when you consider some of the threads I started here.

[edit] I've been through the whole thread linked above, and the quote here is the only one I could find. Mind you, there were some very harsh things said by other people in that thread.

[edit] And it certainly wouldn't count as 'regaling the thread with speculation'. EK only contributed three posts that I could find, and none were remotely obnoxious. Two of them accused Sandifer of being a 'cyberbully', much quoted by others.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: