Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: everyking

On January 1, brimming with hopes for the new ArbCom, I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=262099829#Appeal_by_Everyking 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.

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:



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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: everyking

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.

Posted by: Moulton

It's a http://www.google.com/search?q=Annotated+Alice+Martin+Gardner. 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 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080314/worrying-about-wheel-warring-in-our-wikiwoe/a.

Posted by: Cedric

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 http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20830&st=0.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: Random832

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration#Meet_the_new_arbcom.2C_same_as_the_old_arbcom 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.

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: everyking

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?

Posted by: 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.

Posted by: dtobias

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

Posted by: Peter Damian

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.

Posted by: everyking

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?



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.

Posted by: 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."

Posted by: Moulton

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

Wikipedia mirrors the world.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

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.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

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

Posted by: Cedric

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.

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.

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

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

Posted by: Eva Destruction

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=1116

Posted by: Peter Damian

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



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

[edit] I just found this.



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.

Posted by: Cla68

Everyking, you really do need to forget about this. Yes, it isn't fair, but there isn't anything you can do about it except pretend that it doesn't exist. Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer isn't worth an extra second of your time. You're much more valuable to Wikipedia than he is, because you actually improve articles while about all he does is leave what he probably hopes are sage comments in the administrator forums.

Would you pay any attention to a person like him in real life? If not, why do so when engaging in one of your hobbies, editing Wikipedia? You don't have much, if any, control over whether ArbCom ever sees the unfairness in the situation, so you'll just have to let it go and move on. Accept the things that you cannot change and things will work out in the end.

If Phil doesn't leave you alone, you can handle it the way Rootology did with MONGO a few months ago. MONGO wouldn't stop harassing him so Rootology publicly requested the ArbCom to do something about it. So, FT2 politely and publicly told MONGO to knock it off and he did.

Posted by: Random832

Some sort of assurance that this is not going to get in his way in places where he'd have a legitimate reason to comment but Phil happened to get there first (like AFDs he mentioned) should be made.

Posted by: Peter Damian

As I see it, this is not the issue. EK seems to have been lumbered with a very unfair judgment. The present Arbcom has lumbered him with the same judgment again.

And the particular issue that concerns me, which I have seen in a number of other cases, is that the committee members do not seem to have read or deliberated upon the evidence. The whole process seems to consist of comments in arbitrary order by an indisciplined rabble, then a vote by the committee members. Surely there are better ways to dispense justice.

Posted by: Random832

Well, there are several arbitrators here at WR... maybe they could comment.

[Cool Hand Luke is recused.]

Newyorkbrad, was it your intent in voting on the motion on lifting the other sanctions, that the request would be archived with no consideration on whether to lift the remaining sanction?

FT2, how do you feel about not having had time to vote or comment on this at all?

Anyone else is of course welcome to chime in.

Posted by: Pumpkin Muffins

James, time is on your side, hang in there.

Posted by: Crestatus

I feel for you EK; I know what it's like to be branded and know your a man (to quote an old theme song). The thing is, even if everything was removed you'd still be branded, as you don't have the right friends. I'd vote for you in a RfA, but you are on of those users that could come back under another name and easily pass RfA, but with your current name you never could.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

I question the completeness of that thread, and I suspect that a number of posts were removed at some point. Maybe what you now see is a combination of two or more threads, at which point some stuff was removed that seemed insubstantial.

I recall making a post back then in that precise context that went something like this: "If I know anything about grad school, it seems to me that a complaint to the University about Sandifer might make it difficult for him to finish his PhD program."

I made that post or something very close to it, but I did not make the complaint. Shortly thereafter someone else did, and I have no idea who it was. That's when the University president asked the campus police to check it out.

I'm not ashamed of that post I made back in 2006 — I'd do it again.

I am ashamed that the ArbCom is unable to see this in the context of the Real World instead of in the narrow context of Wikipedia's perverted pool of wacky admins. If the ArbCom was Real-World oriented, they would have dismissed any and all complaints from Sandifer about what happened on WR. That's because what happened to Sandifer as a result of any and all WR posts about him was perfectly reasonable and responsible, and whoever complained was in all probability sincerely concerned about Sanidfer's potential for anti-social behavior in the Real World.

After all, isn't that what the University president concluded just before he asked the campus cops to check it out?

At this point I suspect that Sandifer is not dangerous, but I still think he's irresponsible and lacks sufficient judgment to be a Real-World role model for impressionable undergrads. Part of the evidence for this is that he keeps beating this specific long-dead WR horse, and has yet to admit that he should not be free to use the Internet the way he did with his little blog, without a huge disclaimer attached.

Of course, he does just fine as a role model on Wikipedia. That's par for the course.

Posted by: Moulton

As Lar has reminded us, Due Process is beyond the scope of the project.

And as Jimbo has declared, Ethics is also beyond the scope of the project.

Without Due Process and without Ethics, we can infer that Justice is also way beyond the scope of the project.

It's important to understand that the scope of the project is limited so as to to ensure that 21st Century youth do not learn anything so radical as Ethics, Due Process, or Justice on Jimbo's dime.

That just wouldn't fit in with the Dramaturgy that we all know to be the Central Liturgy of WMF-sponsored projects.

Posted by: Random832

Just so everyone is on the same page, http://www.elsewhere.org/tmp/brandt-sandifer.png is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

You know, I was wondering what had happened to that topic. It has been tampered with quite a bit.

I remember Brandt making a PhD knock, but that's my memory.

Still...there's at least one http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/22/u-florida-cops-ask-f.html quoting Brandt's post in that picture.

Posted by: Daniel Brandt

And just to complete the record, the comic-book fanboy who saved the screenshot on his elsewhere.org blog is one Joshua Larios, aka http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/wishlist/2M8PKINFQ9JR2. Here he is on http://www.linkedin.com/in/rjl20. Judging from his Amazon wishlist, Josh enjoys an active fantasy life, and I wouldn't expect him to be sympathetic to real-world concerns. Consider his overall opinions to be disqualified.

At least my comment on his screenshot appears to be accurate, which means he gets one point for not Photoshopping it.

Posted by: dtobias

You're revealing more about yourself than him, by showing prejudice against somebody based on their preferences in entertainment.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Not that it's not something that's been made abundantly clear about DB before, mind you.

Posted by: everyking

Problem is, I can't move on, because the restriction always finds a way to bite me. As much as I'd like to forget about it all, it comes back to haunt me in various situations, often in unexpected ways. It's not about Phil per se; it's about how being an ArbCom sanctioned editor affects my Wikipedia participation in general.




I would also love to see some arbitrators discuss the situation here. I'd especially like to know why my three alternative solutions weren't even discussed, let alone presented for voting.

Posted by: everyking

Raul654, never one to shy away from an opportunity to attack and smear me, is now openly suggesting on the RfAr talk page that the police tipoff was "possibly EK's actual doing" and that, even if it wasn't, the person who did was surely acting at my instigation. It makes you wonder what they're saying on the ArbCom mailing list--maybe they're treating it as a proven fact that I was responsible. For the record, let me repeat that I did not contact the campus police, the university administration, or anyone else about Phil's blog or anything else pertaining to him. Furthermore, while Raul insists that the whole thing was really my idea, in fact I never suggested contacting the police or connecting Phil with anything illegal. The reality is that I was just one person out of many commenting on the thread and I said nothing all that special, but falsely associating me with the incident was an effective way of ensuring that the restriction would remain in place indefinitely. If this smear ceases to work at some time in the future, maybe Phil will say I dressed up as an officer and harassed him in person.

Posted by: Cla68

I think it's obvious that Phil Sandifer, Tony Sideaway, and, perhaps, Raul are trying to hold this thing over your head forever, but what can you do about it? Nothing that I can see right now except to continue on actually writing articles, which Phil and Tony don't do much of, and see how things turn out. I believe everyone who reads WR and the ArbCom pages is now aware of the situation.

Posted by: Somey

Ridiculous.

Here's the diff, by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=262195485

Phil Sandifer wrote a creepy, wacked out, poorly-written.... thing that was specifically formatted to look like a real, legitimate appeal to a government agency for him to be hired as an assassin of some sort, complete with gory details about how he supposedly went out and murdered some homeless guy just for "practice." The original version contained no disclaimer at all about it being "fiction." Even if it had, it was at best shockingly insensitive for someone working as a graduate assistant at a University that had seen five co-eds murdered by a serial killer just 12 years earlier.

The idea that Wikipedia would have someone like that for an administrator is shameful and and absolute disgrace, not that anyone here should be surprised by it. Nor should we be surprised by their lying and their pathetic attempts at spin control, either. All of these people - Sandifer, Raul654, and anyone else who has defended their actions in this matter - should have been desysopped and banned from WP years ago.

And now they accuse us of covering it up? US???? When we did it mainly to protect Sandifer himself from further "harassment"? Yeah, right!

These people are such assholes... Narcissistic bastards. It just boggles the mind.


No need - I'll restore it. If they can't keep it in their pants, why should we?

At least they dropped the other so-called "sanctions"... That's something, at least.

Posted by: Piperdown

well there's a couple of bullshit snark chime-ins if i ever read one on the W-R.

One's choices in entertainment can be very revealing. Being entertained by reading and posting to W-R is certainly revealing about myself, and I don't think it's a good revelation, lol.

Being entertained by Huge Juggs on WP is something that JzG certainly wasn't happy to have revealed, lol. And that unhappiness was more revealing about the revealed than the revealer. How's that for a turn-around.

snarky turn-around arguments like "people who complain about gays are usually closeted gays themselves" come to mind. No, some folks are just mean, undereducated, or religiously inflexible. None of which describes Brandt. Could he be called the grumpy old man down the block who kept your footballs that you and your friends kept breaking his windows with, and wouldn't give them back until your parents grounded/punished you for it? Sure. I think that's a pretty accurate comparison for what's gone on with Brandt and the "Our Gang" kids...

Posted by: maggot3

I kind of wonder what happened here

Posted by: HappyWanderer

Hushthis apparently requested all references to him, and his posts, be deleted, and the reference to Hushthis was removed. I have no idea as far as the "cyber-bullying antics" quote goes, though.

Posted by: Somey

Sandifer himself probably requested the deletion(s) - he certainly complained loudly enough...!

Bear in mind that after this incident, Sandifer registered an account here and attempted to have what can only be described as a narcissistic bit of fun (note: requires registration to view) with the members who were here at the time, in particular one of our former admins who went by the name "Hushthis."

That thread got to be so excruciating, Sandifer had to be placed in a special group called "Sophists," and restricted to a particular forum reserved for excessive sophistry. That's when he started this topic (also requires registration). Unfortunately, when Hushthis erased all of his own posts in a fit of pique one day, he rendered those threads almost unreadable - though ironically, Sandifer's own posts quote him extensively enough that you can get the gist of what it was like.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I think that this so very illustrative of ArbCom's inability to distinguish between evidence and the kind of non-sense that the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=13609&view=findpost&p=58068 allow to contaminate decision making. Perhaps New York Brad or someone else who is privy to this sausage making could comment on the use of this innuendo by ArbCom.

Posted by: Moulton

Lar and GRBerry are both on record as noting that Wikipedia does not embrace or employ Due Process. Jimbo is on record as declaring that academic material on the subject of Applied Ethics is beyond the scope of the project. The casualty, of course, is that Justice thus falls by the wayside.

One of the leading lights in 20th Century education is Seymour Papert, who developed Lego/Logo Mindstorms. The name of his group at the MIT Media Lab was Epistemology and Learning.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy that addresses the question, "How do we know that our "knowledge" is correct?" Tools such as those employed in the Scientific Method help scholars ensure that the Edifice of Knowledge is accurate and comprehensive, and not riddled with misconceptions, delusional beliefs, erroneous analyses, and dysfunctional ideas.

To the extent that Wikipedia proposes to compile the Sum of All Knowledge, it's important to pay attention to the Epistemology of the Process. How can Wikipedians ensure their compilations are as correct and complete as possible?

The lack of epistemological discipline in the Wikisphere is nothing short of scandalous. It's not that Wikipedians make the occasional academic error. Scholars make inadvertent errors all the time. The scandal is that Wikipedia lacks the fundamental processes painstakingly developed over thousands of years to ensure that the Edifice of Knowledge is built on a sound foundation, with the best possible tools for thought, to ensure that it doesn't collapse like an ill-assembled house of cards.

Not only does Wikipedia lack Judicial Due Process when it comes to forming judgments about its own participants, it also lacks Epistemological Due Process when it comes to reviewing all manner of content published on the site.

Wikipedia should be teaching its participants to adhere to the highest standards of academic scholarship. But instead the pseudonymous administrators of the site routinely blacklist the contributions of credentialed academics and dismiss the scholarship of the world's foremost academic communities. The result is that Wikipedia has turned away from the academic culture to morph itself into a post-modern cyberspace theater of the absurd.

Posted by: dtobias

...or the Scooby-Doo villain who "would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those pesky kids."

Posted by: Cla68

The next time you run for an elected office in Wikipedia, whether for administrator or any other elected position, and Raul, Tony Sideaway, or Phil opposes you, someone should quickly point out that there appears to be personal reasons behind their objections, with a link to Phil's statement in your request for clarification and to the subsequent discussion on the talk page.

One facet of participation in Wikipedia is that there is often an implied or unspoken threat from other editors that they'll try to torpedo you if cross them and then later attempt to gain an elected office. Yes, this is used by some as an attempt at intimidation and control. I'm not necessarily saying that Phil, Tony Sideaway, or Raul are implying this right now, but we'll see what takes place the next time you run for an elected office, if you choose to do so.

Posted by: everyking

Right now, it appears that Phil is involved in some dispute on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Threshold_(online_game). I've never heard of this game and I don't have the patience to try to figure out what they're talking about, but let's say, hypothetically, that I was to read everything piled up on that talk page, form an opinion, and register it there as part of the discussion. What would happen to me? Nobody has said I'm not allowed to edit the Threshold article or participate in relevant discussion, but am I effectively banned from it now just because Phil has taken an interest in it?

Posted by: Milton Roe

One

One is the squirreliest member that we ever knew
Cool can be as bad as One
He’s the squirrelist arb’er since the member One
Ohhhhh.

Oppose is the saddest opinion that you'll ever know
Yes, it’s the baddest opinion that you'll ever know
'Cause One is the loneliest member that we ever knew
One is the loneliest member, even worse than you

chorus

It's just no good anymore since he went astray
Now we search in vain for critic strains of yes-ter-day...
(Member) One is the loneliest
(Member) One is the loneliest
(Member) One is the loneliest member that we ever knew
(Member) One is the loneliest
(Member) One is the loneliest
(Member) One is the loneliest member that we ever knew

© Three Dog Night and BarRoom Dork Associates

Posted by: EricBarbour

Heh. Every time I see a post on WR from "One",
I think of that song....

Sandifer? He's still doing dirty? If WP was a "real" "encyclopedia", they would
have shown him the door 2 years ago.

Actually, the idea of having a special "Sophists and Pedants" forum
that crass types like Sandifer are exiled to, this is not such a bad idea....

Yep.

Posted by: Somey

Didn't he say at one point or other (prior to the ArbCom vote) that he'd tend to recuse himself from decisions involving WR regulars?

Don't make me look it up...

Posted by: One

Yes, and I will usually hold to that in cases involving regular regulars (i.e., anyone with several hundred posts who has been active since I've been here). Would like to avoid any accusations of bias.

That said, I noticed that no one requested the same thing of, say, IRC #-admins regulars. Oh well.


Good song, nice in-joke.

Posted by: Somey

The thing is, if it weren't for the lies and spin-doctoring going on in support of this silly restriction, it wouldn't deserve much attention, if any (other than from EK himself, perhaps).

I mean, what's the point, really? To spare Phil Sandifer's feelings? What's so special about his feelings, particularly given that he's never made much of an effort to spare anyone else's?

It's long been accepted that there are a handful of "untouchable" high mucky-mucks on Wikipedia whom nobody is allowed to mess with, at least until any given untouchable mucky-muck turns against the collective, at which point they become "fair game." And let's face it, they need those kinds of exceptions - otherwise, what would be the incentive to become a high mucky-muck in the first place, along with WP's getting all the free work a person has to do to get there?

Mind you, Sandifer is no asset to Wikipedia or ED or (I would imagine) any other website he's a contributor to. But paradoxically, I suspect he'd be more likable and fair-minded on the two sister-sites if he had more authority, and didn't feel like his "position" was in jeopardy. Threatening people like that just makes them more aggressive, and leads to all sorts of additional nastiness.

Posted by: Lar

Maybe someone should.
Or maybe someOne should ?

Tangentially:

Phil and I have our differences but he's on the side of the angels on the MUD thing. There's a problem with how to validate and accept non traditional sources of information for things which are important but which aren't documented in the traditional way. MMORPGs are big business and arguably are having a not insignificant cultural effect, and documenting MUDs, an important stepping stone to them, is a valid thing for Wikipedia to be doing. (this posting http://www.raphkoster.com/2009/01/08/wikipedia-muds-and-where-the-sources-are/ talks about the problem and how maybe to solve it, from an outsiders perspective)

That deletion discussion and the subsequent bad PR is just the sort of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

(I found this posting http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows-platform/articles/22166.aspx quite fascinating reading. And dismaying... (well for me anyway) because while I as an insider don't necessarily think everything said there actually went down exactly that way, and every allegation is true... if you're an OUTSIDER looking in, the record (the AfD, the blocks, etc) all support exactly those conclusions.)

So now another net savvy segment of the general public thinks WP is worthless.

Well done...

Posted by: EricBarbour

Gee, Larry, why aren't you using YOUR glorious golden admin power to
put a stop to this? Why don't you challenge Sandifer and friends (or whoever) on this crap?
Stop wringing your hands and take ACTION.

Or is Hartman right, and Wikipedia is broken beyond repair?

Posted by: Casliber

I guess running it by the arbs is the best thing and we can discuss it there.

EK, speaking for myself I saw the result as the lesser/least of two evils, all things considered, as you said you had no intention of interacting with Phil. I can see why you are frustrated, but I do think that the results of your Requests for Adminship suggest numerically that the next time you will be successful. I did support you in the last RfA in September, though I have no clue when to suggest running again
cheers
Cas

Posted by: Crestatus

I think March might be good. 6 months.

Posted by: everyking

I don't know if I'd dare post a request for clarification at this point, considering how some of you guys reacted to my appeal. The ArbCom might vote to ban me on the spot, or put me in a special "subuser who can be banned at any time by anyone for any reason" category (which would really just be formalizing the existing state of affairs, I suppose).

This fantastically successful appeal of mine had the pleasant side-effect of producing the most severe allegation against me to date, and I fully expect to see that allegation again whenever I go for RfA. "Oppose--orchestrated police harassment". Somehow I suspect that will be rather detrimental to my chances, even though, oddly enough, no one thought to mention it during my previous RfAs.




Certainly not until after February 22! Remember, although the ArbCom voted to lift several restrictions in early January, that doesn't actually take effect until February 22, which is a special, magical day unlike any others. If I went for RfA before then, you can just imagine: "Oppose. User is just lying in wait until February 22, at which point he will take advantage of his freedom to go on a wild vandalism/trolling/stalking spree".

And then, after February 22, there'll be a phase where people will say: "well, it's only been a few days/weeks...he must be repressing his vandal/troll/stalker impulses for the time being, so he can pass RfA, but pretty soon he'll explode". If I was cryogenically frozen and revived in another century, I'd still hear it: "not enough time has passed since those terrible incidents"..."he needs to get his ArbCom restrictions removed first, then come back"...

Posted by: Somey

Feb. 22 is George Washington's birthday - the actual birthday, not the stupid, phony "observed" birthday, which this year is probably Feb. 23, as if anyone cares (except for all the people who are getting the day off).

So it's actually an appropriate date to be set free of unjust, authoritarian restrictions against your life, your liberty, and your pursuit of happiness. By the same token, it also makes it a horribly inappropriate date for anything even remotely associated with Wikipedia, which cares not a whit for any of those things.

Posted by: Crestatus

I'm glad someone else realized it was Washington's birthday.

Posted by: Cedric

I am doubtful that any of us here at WR had anything to do with that. But to the extent that any member did: "Your very welcome, I'm sure".

I found this analysis from the article interesting:

While it is not true that all admin wannabes are "deletionists", I still find this a pretty accurate description of the path to power (such as it is) that many wannabes actually take. The truth is inevitably seeping to the surface.

Hasten The Day!

Posted by: everyking

Phil may be right about this Threshold issue; I don't know. Let's say I chime in to express agreement with Phil's position, without directly addressing him or interacting with him. Is that OK? If so, is disagreement also acceptable? Important questions, but never addressed by the ArbCom in the three years since it passed this restraining order. It's all a mystery, forcing me to err on the side of caution and avoid everything he's involved with on any level.

Just now I was working on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Andr%C3%A9_Kombila, an article that I created and to which I am thus far the sole editor. Let's say Phil spots a typo on that article and fixes it. Am I then banned from continuing my work on that article? If so, is Phil going to step in and do the work I was planning to do? Somehow I think not.

Or, because the scenarios are practically limitless, let's say Phil posts a message on the Kombila article talk page criticizing the article or asking a question about it. Am I allowed to reply to him? Am I allowed to continue working on the article itself after he has expressed interest in the subject, even without editing the article itself? It's all a mystery!

Posted by: Moulton

It's a supreme irony that a project that is built around 21st Century communications media is occupied by participants who are allergic to communication. Here are two people, exchanging information via a popular communication medium, and one of them finds the process so traumatizing that the communication process must be arrested by a dictum imposed by a body whose logic is unfathomable.

Posted by: everyking

I suppose I will have to post a request for clarification, since it doesn't look like Casliber or any other arb is going to give me an answer here. Prior to doing so, I will need to take some time to steel myself for the ordeal that will follow, and maybe I should go ahead and draw up a will, just in case I don't make it back alive.

Posted by: everyking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Clarifications_and_other_requests

Posted by: Somey

Personally, I'd say the likelihood that you'll get any sort of definitive answers based on actual use-case scenarios (hypothetical or otherwise) is roughly 15 percent... OTOH, maybe someone there will read this prediction and take it as a kind of "challenge" to provide at least some level of detail, in which case I figure the probability could rise to as much as 25 percent.

Do we know who initially formulated the wording on this restriction, and specifically who came up with the word "interact"? It's hard to imagine a more fudgeable word than that. Frankly, this whole silly business just makes Sandifer look like a wuss who can't take being disagreed with, and runs bawling to Mommy ArbCom if one of "those bad people" says something mean to him. We knew that already, of course, but this is like putting up a big billboard or running TV ads about it... I actually thought he had a bit more self-respect than that.

I guess that might have all been implied by my use of the word "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22249&view=findpost&p=150203" to describe the situation a little earlier in the thread, though.

Posted by: Lar

The "well done" was directed at those at WP behind this particular contretemps, not anyone here at WR. This time.

Posted by: everyking

I realized that they might not want to address the specific scenarios, so I neatly distinguished between the two basic interpretations: "am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him?"

Phil is beyond my comprehension, so I won't even try to explain why he wants this restriction to remain in place. Around May 2007 (a year or more after I supposedly instigated police harassment against him) I e-mailed him and offered an olive branch, saying I that would never again say anything negative about him anywhere if he agreed to request the lifting of my ArbCom sanctions. His response was ambiguous, but he suggested that he might be willing to request the lifting of the sanctions after a few more months. Now, in January 2009, he makes bizarre, previously unheard accusations against me and urges the ArbCom to make the restriction permanent, subject to removal only by Jimbo himself. And yet nothing whatsoever happened in the meantime.

Posted by: Somey

Someone else here must have posted something nasty about him. Could have been me, actually... I don't think he really distinguishes between individual WR members, and probably never has.

He may also be a little upset that in the intervening 1-1/2 years, we seem to have become more "respectable."

Posted by: Milton Roe

And should. They deserve it.

Indeed, and why not? There should not have been ANY blocks over this kind of thing. It was a result of WP insider people gaming the system and those in power acting like pricks to enforce a POV because THEYDIDNTLIKE something:


You have only your own system to blame for it. Well done, indeed. Hmmm: Why don't you do something to fix it?


COMMENT: Lar says he disagrees with this account of what happened. Okay, Lar, {{Citation needed}}. You can go out and bullshit the public all you like, and lament that the public is gaining a bad idea at the way WP operates, but the above is EXACTLY how WP operates. I'll be glad to discuss details with you HERE were nobody can block or threaten me for calling a spade a spade and a prick a prick. Good luck.

You can try to defend what happened on WP all you like, but all it's going to do, is embarrass you. You don't have any power to shut down or control discussion, and I will embarrass you the more you delve into it. So feel free. You cannot defend powermad idiots behaving like idiots.

And what you can't do here, is bullshit about the nature of WP. To do that, you need the powers you have on WP but don't have HERE. Tough, Lar. My heart bleeds for WP.

And yes, the net is getting savvy to the dirty tricks which are routine on WP. Again, see my heart bleed about this.

Milt

Posted by: everyking

Coren appears to favor upholding the de facto interpretation, which prohibits me from editing anything that Phil Sandifer has edited. It's a curious thing, because Coren actually voted to support my RfA a few months ago. Why the change of heart? Do these guys get access to the ArbCom mailing list, see some spurious allegations against me there, and decide I must be evil after all?

Posted by: Somey

My assumption would be that he simply doesn't want to rock the boat and make enemies among the old-guard "cabal" types. This may be some sort of "litmus issue" for them, for all we know. (Or is it "bellwether issue"? I keep getting those two confused.)

Posted by: Milton Roe

Easy to do. For sheep who are dips, you need a sheepdip test for issues. Dip your wether in the dip and if the issue is basic, it will come out blue and cold. If the issue is the opposite, the wether forecast will be red and angry, and the bell will chime to signal the presense of ding-a-lings. Unless I have the thing backwards, too.

Posted by: everyking

Spotting an opportunity to put this thing to the test, I bravely registered an opinion at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Threshold_(online_game)_(2nd_nomination). Depending on which interpretation is applied, this may or may not be a blocking offense--either the ArbCom will have to take my concerns seriously, or they'll have to effectively accept my interpretation of the restriction.

Posted by: Lar

Yep.

I'm not going to defend the folks at WP who nominated this article, or pulled a bunch of less than kosher moves during the course of the first AfD. The MUD people have every right to be annoyed. This disparaging of certain types of sources is a serious problem that needs fixing. Beats me how to fix it, though.

That there's now a second AfD is like saying "kick me again", basically. Meh.

Posted by: Somey

Well, let's not get all "emo" about it... ...it's not like you were going to vote "delete," after all!

I was certainly amused by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=263878836&oldid=263868665 though, by Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D) - apparently the important thing is to avoid situations where "eyebrows would be raised."


That section, in turn, states:

It's always back to that misuse-of-terminology thing, isn't it?

And of course, Sandifer avoids the basic issue again, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=263892125&oldid=263885267 One would think that Phil's been around Wikipedia long enough to know that no "hypothetical" related to Wikipedia should ever be treated as "absurd." Just more power-tripping and ball-thrusting, plain and simple - the absurd thing is the restriction itself, and that should be obvious enough to anybody with a brain.

Posted by: everyking

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Everyking&diff=264779755&oldid=262101769 from the ArbCom today:

"We were pretty bored on the Arbitration Committee mailing list and we decided, what the hell, let's resysop Everyking!

Sorry for all the rubbish about taking the bit, but you can have the mop back without even having to go for another pesky RfA. We cool now?

For the Arbitration Committee,

Arbcom-enwiki (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)"

Oh wait, it was a joke. You know things are in bad shape when justice and fairness are so blatantly unrealistic that they are nothing but joke material.

Posted by: Coren

Because, simply put, I don't believe the restriction is in any way onerous or places you into some sort of evil wikipedian category. Basically, in it has no real effect over your ability to edit, and the only one making a big deal out of it is you -- repeatedly.

And that "de facto" interpretation is, as has been pointed out a number of times to you, incorrect and not, in fact, used in fact by anyone but yourself to build a strawman.

-- Coren

Posted by: everyking

Coren, am I a user in good standing? If you think so, please explain how that can be when I'm also an ArbCom-sanctioned editor (if I'm a user in good standing, who isn't? Amorrow?). If you think not, please explain how you can justify keeping me in the position of some kind of sub-editor in light of the extraordinary length of time that has passed without incident and the fact that I continually churn out new content on a daily basis.

If, during my next RfA, no one points out my "restraining order", tells me I need to get my restrictions removed and then come back, or raises any baseless allegations about police harassment (remember--those allegations are, in effect, endorsed by this ArbCom restraining order), then I'll owe you a nickel. The fact is, this restriction is seriously detrimental to my community standing and makes it impossible for me to fully participate in the project, while accomplishing no actual purpose aside from puffing up Phil Sandifer's pride a bit more.

Posted by: everyking

In a remarkable turn of events, Phil has actually been http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ego_the_Living_Planet&action=history: "Ego the Living Planet", a comic book character (no, I'm not going to make an "ego" joke). It isn't clear to me if he actually added content to the article--that would be particularly impressive--but at the very least he reorganized the article substantially. So, my question is, am I allowed to edit this article now? Clearly I was allowed to edit it yesterday--but not today? Is that right? And if so, do I regain my editing privileges on the Ego article after a certain length of time, or am I banned from it forever? If I am in fact banned from it, do I get a warning--"hey, you know, that's a Phil article, you can't touch it"--or is it just an automatic block?

Several arbitrators have written "clarifications" in response to my request, some of them rather lengthy, but nevertheless I see no clear answers to those questions. Inevitably, some people will see this as another silly hypothetical situation, since I have no interest in comic book characters--but if this restriction is in place indefinitely (and Phil continues to actively edit) it is quite likely that he will eventually edit something that I also wish to edit.

Let me be clear: this restriction is completely absurd, and all that follows from it is necessarily absurd. Don't blame me for calling attention to absurd aspects of an absurd situation--I speak the language that is spoken to me.

Posted by: dtobias

Yes, those sorts of restrictions are absurd when you examine them closely, as you're doing. On the other hand, going out of the way to point out specific articles the other guy is editing, pertaining to subject matter which you were not previously interested in, only to make a point about whether you're now allowed to edit them, is kind of annoying too.

Posted by: Cla68

EK, I'll ask you again, would you pay attention to Phil in real life? I assume that you would elect to use your freedom of choice and awareness that human life has a finite span of time and elect to ignore him.

Posted by: everyking

It's not about Phil, it's about the ArbCom and my community standing. In this situation, I can no more ignore Phil than I can ignore a kick in the teeth or a knife against my throat. If the restriction were gone, then I could forget about him.

Posted by: Cla68

Then ignore the Committee sanction then and pretend that it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Somey

But aren't you overlooking the fairly strong possibility that they've kept the "no-interaction" rule in place, and as nebulous as possible, precisely in the hopes that he'll do just that - so as to provide a pretext for banning him?

Posted by: SirFozzie

...or the much stronger possibility that they figure that it does EK no harm and keeps him from the possibility of getting into trouble to keep him from being banned?

Posted by: Somey

Maybe, but that means they're ignoring EK's rather overtly emo attachment to the Wikipedia ideal (or is it "idyll"?), not to mention his apparent desire to both be a part of it, and to somewhat bitterly criticize those whom he feels are subverting it.

In other words, it is doing him "harm," at least as far as he's concerned. I'm not saying it should, nor am I saying that the ArbCom should have to make allowances for EK's psycho-emotional weaknesses (no offense intended there, though I suppose it will be hard not to take same).

But I'm afraid that what you end up with is something similar to the old Cheech and Chong "dogshit on the sidewalk" routine:

...if you substitute the words "silly restriction" for "shit," you should get the general idea of how this will probably work out.

Posted by: everyking

So it's like I have emphysema and the ArbCom won't give me my cigarettes, right? If the ArbCom loves me so much, let's see them make a statement to the effect that I am a user in good standing, that the restraining order should not reflect upon my community standing, and that the allegations about police harassment have no basis.

Posted by: Moulton

Restraining orders need to have some degree of symmetry to ensure that the person being protected cannot freely or blithely bait the person being restrained, thereby putting the restrained person in a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind.

Adversaries naturally tend to get in each other's face. Your basic visual metaphor for that is a chess game (where the double bind is the principal strategy for entrapping an opponent's piece).

The restraining order against Everyking has trapped his peace, which (I reckon) is one reason why he's so unpeaced over the issue.

I am not unfamiliar with the experience of being restrained. It is not a peaceable experience. And as the inauguration yesterday of Barack Obama reminds us, it can be a decades-long struggle to overcome the despair and the acedia of being restrained from contributing to the advance of civilization.

Posted by: Cla68

The fact that Phil wants this "restraining order" on you reflects more poorly on him than it does on you, especially his self-serving reasoning for keeping it. If I were you, I'd go back to editing and not even think about it for six months to a year then go back to ArbCom and remind them that this sanction is silly and needs to be lifted.

I understand why you're chafing under it, because you feel it will be used against you if you run for adminship or for another elected position. I don't think that's necessarily the case. If people want to oppose your candidacy, they'll find some silly reason somewhere. This is more reflective of Wikipedia's current structure and culture than it is about a single ruling/sanction by ArbCom. No, things aren't very fair in Wikipedia when it comes to wiki-politics. If you accept the things you cannot change, or at least change very easily (isn't this a mantra from a 12-step program?), I think it may reduce some of your frustration.

Posted by: One

I agree with what Cla68 says above.

Posted by: everyking

Like I suggested above, if the ArbCom were to pass a statement that effectively neutralized the political ramifications of the restraining order, while nevertheless leaving it place, I would have significantly less cause to complain. I don't agree that voters will just think up another pretext to oppose if that one is gone--many, many RfA participants know little to nothing about me, and this restraining order is likely to sway many of them into opposition. "ArbCom-sanctioned editor" is a very, very bad thing to have branded onto your hide.

Posted by: Moulton

It's another facet of the Bomis Boyzâ„¢ Dominance/Submissive B&D Fetish that pervades WikiCulture.

The practice of binding, gagging, blocking, baleeting, and blacklisting is arguably the dominant practice of the http://www.google.com/search?q=dysfunction+disjunction+error+anankastic who are enamored of the anachronistic Rules and Sanctions Regime.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Never seemed to have much effect on Jayjg.

Posted by: everyking

I don't remember what you're talking about, but Jayjg doesn't have to pass RfA again.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

No one "has" to pass RfA again.

But, if he did, jayjg would surely fail. As would you, even if this sanction were to be lifted.

Posted by: everyking

I don't agree with your pessimism. Do you realize I got 66% of the vote last time? The way I see it, I could easily top 70% if I lost the "ArbCom-sanctioned editor" brand.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I doubt it would have any material effect on your chances of passing.

Posted by: Somey

I do too - at this point, EK is too much of a "political" issue, and internal WP politics would trump whatever else might be deemed to be "RfA criteria" by most people, i.e., talent and diligence (not that those are ever considered RfA criteria in any real sense).

Actually, if anything, the fact that Phil Sandifer apparently hates EK might bring him more support votes, not less, depending on the timing. EK should wait until Phil does something really public and really obnoxious, let it play out for a week or two, and then go for the RfA again.

Posted by: everyking

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=265778374&oldid=265776624 to consider motions that would alleviate the negative effects on my community standing that resulted from its rejection of my appeal. I hope the arbitrators will move quickly, because Tznkai is saying that he will close the request within 12 hours.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Ridiculous. Arbcom can't tell people how to perceive things. If people perceive you in good standing, then to them you are. If they don't, you're not.

Posted by: everyking

The ArbCom can tell the community how it means for its rulings to be intepreted. But anyway, Scott, I'm anxious to hear what your perception is: good standing or not?

Posted by: C H

EK's efforts to regain adminship have largely been thwarted by Phil and Raul. Coincidentally, Phil and Raul are both seeing their wiki-influence fall substantially, and they will continue to fall. The time will soon come when Phil and Raul's rabid opposition will help propel Everyking back to adminship.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

I don't much do binaries. Half the community (that know me) loathe me - am I in good standing?

If you are asking if I'd support an RfA, I'd have to think about that (did I vote last time?). However, there are many fairly good editors who I'd oppose. So I'm not sure "good standing" tallies with RfA.

Posted by: everyking

So Ryan Postlethwaite has archived my request, despite the addition of my new and still-unanswered question. I was all set to go off on Ryan about it, but he reports that he was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite&diff=265811954&oldid=265811740. I suppose that's the closest thing to a clarification I've gotten during this process, isn't it? It seems to go something like this: No, you're not a user in good standing, and you're getting on our nerves, so please go away now. Gerard used to have a more succinct way of putting it: "No, you can't do that EITHER."

Nevertheless, I'm going to try to look on the bright side. In just one month--on February 22--I'll regain certain privileges that virtually every other editor takes for granted: to express opinions without conducting research beforehand (yes, seriously), to make ArbCom appeals whenever I wish, and to talk to administrators without the threat of being blocked at any time for "harassment" (for up to one year!). Abusive admins need not despair, though, because they've still got one month to block me for violation of one of the above restrictions.

No longer will I deliberately evade everything edited by Phil Sandifer: I will edit what I want to edit, and if my edits overlap with Phil's at some point, we'll see what happens then.

Posted by: everyking

Maybe someone can help me. I'm looking for someone who can distill http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=265778374&oldid=265776624#EK3_clarification I received into a summary that can serve as a practical guide to what I can and can't do. All I'm seeing is "we don't like you, go away", and it's a little discouraging, so I'm hoping someone can clarify these clarifications more optimistically.

Posted by: Moulton

Mars to EveryEarthlingKing...

Mars to EveryEarthlingKing...

Now hear this...

Now hear this...

Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Martin Luther King are well known outcasts of their time who demonstrated a Martian Meme known to Earthlings as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience.

If you are unfamiliar with the Theory and Practice of Civil Disobedience, I have a colleague (http://beta.wikiversity.org/wiki/User:Moulton/Barsoom_Tork) who will be glad to tutor you in the finer points of the subject.

Posted by: Lar

A lot of people CAN express opinions without conducting research beforehand. That doesn't mean they SHOULD. Often, doing so makes one sound foolish.

A lot of people CAN make arbcom appeals whenever they wish. That doesn't mean they SHOULD. Often, doing so gets one a reputation for vexatious litigation.

A lot of people CAN talk to administrators at any time and be as snippy/foolish/rude as they wish, but no one is safe from the threat of being blocked at any time for harassment, if what they say is egregious enough (in the eyes of some person) to merit it. Often, drama ensues, as the block may not be well founded, but it can happen to anyone.

Just some things to think about.

Posted by: Random832

Opinions don't have to be based on facts at all, researched or otherwise. They're opinions.

I don't think the term "vexatious litigation" can ever be properly applied to an "appeal" (rather than, you know, initiating an action against someone else)

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I see your point in relation to real processes although I suppose an appeal might be so baseless to be seen as vexatious. On Wikipedia, of course, vexatious litigation is the only kind available.

Posted by: Moulton

I dunno about anyone else opining on the issue (with or without the benefit of verboten research), but I am personally vexed by the willful ignorance of the core precepts of due process, civil rights, evidence-driven reasoning, scientific methodology, and scholarly ethics among vexatious litigants of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Archive_1#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

The term can be applied to someone who files frivolous, repetitive, or irrelevant motions or petitions within the context of an existing proceeding, when doing so is intended to increase the cost of litigation.

Posted by: Lar

Nod.

But some sound more foolish when uttered than others. And sometimes, researching things in advance can avoid that. I could have avoided the foolishness of opining that the moon is made of Stilton cheese if I had only bothered to do some research and learned that the most commonly accepted view is that it's actually made of green cheese...

That's all I'm saying.


I agree with Kelly on this, it is possible to appeal something enough times to get this reputation.


I am Shocked, Shocked that Moulton is apparently trying to derail this thread so he can let us know his personal vexations...

Is that an example of a Vexatious Opinionant ?

edit: changed to "apparently trying" since that's what it appears like to me

Posted by: InkBlot

I think NewYorkBrad's comments were pretty good on this (reformatted a bit by me):


It's an elaboration on Fayssal's "Comment on the content, not on the contributor." Although, in this they can't peer in your head, so it's more like "Give the appearance of commenting on the content, not on the contributor."

The interpretation I get is, if you actions would reasonably be the same if someone replaced the Phil Sandifer (T-C-L-K-R-D) with Folgers Crystals (T-C-L-K-R-D) in any situation, then you're OK. Your sanction is only violated if they feel you're acting differently because it's Phil.

Now, if you pardon me, I'm going to see if "Folgers Crystals" is taken as a username now.

Posted by: Random832

I'm concerned about Carcharoth's "while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past" - he's ignoring the possibility that you've been deliberately _avoiding_ him in the past and that a return to natural behavior with no intent of antagonism would necessarily lead to an increase in frequency

Posted by: Moulton

Can you believe this?!?

See, there you go again with those vexatious opinions formerly known as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Mind#Interpersonal_understanding_of_mental_states.

But, since you opened the door to the subject of haphazard opinions unsupported by scientific methods of evidence-driven reasoning and analysis, permit me to introject into the discussion Jimbo's newest pheromeme along those lines.

A while back, Jimbo sauntered unannounced into Wikiversity and summarily declared a wide swath of academically crafted material to be "beyond the scope of the project". Thereafter, a goose-stepping parade of his second lieutenants (including Guillom, Mike Ingram, Mike Umbridge, and Darklama) adopted Jimbo's term of art and repeated it, verbatim, elsewhere in Wikiversity and Beta.Wikiversity.

Among the materials so declared to be "beyond the scope of the project" were NewYorkBrad's principles employed in the FeloniousMonk ArbCom Case and scientific methods of hypothesis testing.

I confess to being perplexed as to how fundamental methods of Epistemology can be "beyond the scope of the project."


The NYBrad Principles were entirely contained, complete and verbatim, in a separate subpage of their own, with no other content on the page. I did that so that scholars studying ethical principles of due process could review NYBrad's Principles of Due Process without any distracting comments or opinions from their fellow scholars.

The other pages were mostly the standard variety of talk page discussions that arise ubiquitously throughout the project. It is unclear to me how a set of scholarly discussions, arrayed in the conventional manner of a talk page, can be defined to be "beyond the scope of the project."


I was hardly the sole author of the content in the threads on those talk pages. Those colloquies included substantive dialogues with most of the principal participants at Wikiversity, including most of the Custodians there (notably including several adversarial Custodians who presented their arguments against me).

Posted by: Random832

Ignoring, for the moment, wtf this has to do with the topic of 'ArbCom votes to uphold EK "restraining order"',

I would hazard a guess that he was declaring the _arrangement_ of materials to be beyond the scope of the project, rather than every single thing included therein.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Actually, he was declaring the author of the materials as persona non grata. Jimbo has no clue what the scope of any particular Wikimedia project is, nor does he care.

Posted by: everyking

I think you're missing the point, Lar. I don't plan to now start making uninformed comments: the fact is, I never made a habit of making uninformed comments in the first place and did so no more often than the average editor; furthermore, I did not alter my behavior after the ArbCom passed that motion, and yet I can't recall any further complaints that I was making uninformed comments. It was just a cheap, meaningless accusation intended to add some meat to an extremely lean case. The same goes for the alleged harassment of administrators. By saying I want those restrictions removed, I'm not saying "I want to do those things", just as a wrongfully convicted man is not asking to be released from jail so he can go commit crimes. I'm saying I want my community standing restored without these official smears on my reputation. I've said that many times, but some people never seem to understand it...wait, you're not guilty of commenting without being adequately informed, are you, Lar?

Now, admittedly, I do intend to take advantage of the elimination of my appeal restriction. I'll probably appeal once every six months (for the next thirty years?).



I suppose that's a good interpretation, but bear in mind that many arbitrators commented and Brad is probably the one most favorably inclined towards me. His viewpoint needs to be balanced against the viewpoints of the other arbitrators.

Looks like "Folgers Crystals" is an alleged sockpuppet of Scibaby and was blocked by Raul654 (although the account apparently never made any edits). It's a small wiki, huh?

Posted by: One

His baby account did. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Folgers_Crystals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wings_Upon_My_Feet. It is assumed that accounts who edit on Global Warming and who set up other accounts while logged in are scibaby.

Posted by: everyking

There I go again, commenting without adequately informing myself beforehand! Will I ever learn?!

Posted by: One

Heh. No, I did the same thing.

It's very strange because GW admins often talk about this idiosyncratic trait, but Scibaby and/or his imitators do it anyway. Scibaby apparently commands millions of IPs, yet can't log out after creating sock accounts. *shrug*

Posted by: InkBlot

Fair enough...I looked again, here's more on the others.

• JayVDB - seems to reinforce the basic idea of "comment on content, not the editor" before asking questions for specific incidents.
• Coren - suggests a phrase of yours, which boils down to "comment on content, not the editor", is accurate.
• Vassyana - blasts you with lots of questions, which seem to boil down to "what's the fuss?", before agreeing with Carcharoth and NYB.
• Carcharoth - reinforces the "comment on content..." idea, and adds an additional guideline that you should avoid articles/conversations/XfDs started by Phil. Note this one, it's a stricter interpretation.
• Casliber - just gives a "per Carcharoth"
• FayasslF - "comment on content..."
• NewYorkBrad - "comment on content..."

So, to sum up. It looks like you have 4 in support of the idea that if you're focusing on content, and not specifically addressing or following Phil around, you're OK. You then have 3 which go a bit further and suggest (from Carcharoth's statement), that you try to avoid anything begun by Phil. That's a bit strict in its vagueness, especially since to me it seems to suggest a kind of OWNership, which I feel your request was trying to clarify. I don't recall if Vassyana posts here, but Casliber does...maybe he could clarify his POV.

Posted by: Coren

That sounds like a fair assessment. I should point out that the key is appearances: as Brad pointed out, if you were inactive on AfD for weeks and suddenly popped up on an AfD for an article you basically never contributed to that Phil just started, it'd probably look fishy enough that you'd get poked about it.

As for "in good standing", I might be able to tell you if you are the day anyone agrees on a definition that has any sort of reasonable meaning. The only one I can think of that makes any sort of sense goes along the lines of "most people feel you are a net positive"; and such a declaration is way beyond the reach of the Committee (or any arb) to make.

Now, will you please just go back to editing and drop the matter?

-- Coren

Posted by: tarantino

That's rich. Words fail me in describing the I antipathy I feel in regards to that question.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Thanks a lot, smartass.

How is the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22026 going?

And how's the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision turning up? Not much in real-world results, eh?

You're a fount of action. Sad that very little changes as a result.

How many times have people here tried to tell you: Wikipedia is so fucked up,
you can add-on rules and regulations till the cock crows, and it won't fix the mess?

If you want reform, ask for Jimbo, Gerard, JzG and several other bastards to leave.
Permanently. Replace them with non-egomaniacs.

Good luck.

Posted by: everyking

It's funny to note in the midst of all this discussion of AfDs that Phil and I are both inclusionists of a sort, although we have very different standards. I think that anything that gets reported to a substantial degree by the media is notable, whereas Phil will vote to keep an article on some obscure webcomic (things that I generally don't think warrant inclusion), but try to get an article on a mass shooting deleted. I think the difference has something to do with fact that I prioritize published sources, while he prioritizes expert opinion instead. Anyway, I guess if a situation arises, I'll just vote on a few other AfDs before and afterward so the Phil AfD doesn't stand out so much. How's that?

I assumed everyone agreed that "good standing" meant "free to edit without restrictions". I've never seen it defined as "net positive" before, but anyway, it's pretty clear that I fail this definition too. Clearly the piles of content I write everyday are far outweighed by the fact that I am a troll/vandal/stalker/advanced practitioner of the dark arts, per the ArbCom's judgments. After all, in 2006 the ArbCom banned me from Wikipedia for allegedly harassing User:Extraordinary Machine (by arguing with him on an article talk page). Obviously the ArbCom, in its infinite wisdom, would not ban a user who was a "net positive" to the project...right?

As for the last comment, I like to think I have been editing. In December, for example, I created (by my count) 36 articles, all of them in the seriously underdeveloped area of African politics. Does the ArbCom even notice things like that?

Posted by: everyking

In less than 24 hours, all of my sanctions, except for the restriction on interacting with Phil, will be lifted. If any admins out there would like to block me for some spurious reason, such as failing to adequately inform myself before commenting, you had better hurry up and do it. Actually, I think maybe I have commented without adequately informing myself at some point in the recent past...I don't remember!

Here's a question for anybody who takes the ArbCom really seriously: let's say I make an uninformed comment on February 21, but no admin discovers my uninformed comment until February 22. By that point, the restriction has expired, but the offense occurred prior to its expiration. How should that be handled?

Posted by: Milton Roe

If you stalk Phil and nobody notices until a great woodsman diverts a stream and finds your mocasin print in the stream bed, are you out of the woods? Well, if you're going to be a Cooper Indian, you can only hope no Twain ever notices you.

Posted by: Lar

Since you would presumably be doing it, or bringing it up, to get attention, make a point, or whatever, it should be ignored, unless there is more to it than you just being clueless about something. I think singling you out for being clueless, even if it's true that you are clueless on a routine basis, is fairly rich irony since there are so many other clueless folk.

(I suppose answering this might imply that I "take ArbCom really seriously"... well, maybe I do. Deal.)

Posted by: everyking

Yes, Lar, but I am exceptionally clueless, you see...arguably the most clueless of them all. As Raul explained, my views are so crazy that no one could hold them if they had done a second's worth of research, so I must make my comments in complete ignorance. Imagine, someone thinking that Phil has a tendency to abuse admin powers, particularly back in 2005...imagine! Or someone thinking that, instead of firing off an obviously controversial block on an established editor, one should take it to AN for prior discussion...no sane person could hold a viewpoint like that.

Posted by: Lar

You won't find me making that argument. There are so many contenders for that title, and you're not even really in the running.

Posted by: everyking

Well, I'm flattered, Lar. But I bet you say that to all the girls, don't you?

Posted by: Lar

I've not found that to be a particularly effective opener in the past, no. However, I wasn't aware you were playing at being a girl... you might want to change to Everyqueen if thats the case.

But read my blog, it'll make your snark much more effective...

Besides, all snarkiness aside, I like you, even if you don't like me. I admire your persistance and your interest in the project under adverse conditions that would have driven lesser men away. I don't think you've been completely fairly dealt with either. That doesn't mean I think you've always acted wisely, or that you're perfect, who among us has or is? Certainly not me. There's always room for improvement.

So can we move on? I'm glad your restriction is over, even if I'm not impressed with the question that (re)started this thread, as it smacks of point-ism. I don't quite get why you asked it. Other than to score points... in which case, well played.

Posted by: One

This is all spot-on. Congratulations, Everyking, now move on.

Posted by: everyking

You talk as if it's some other people who are responsible for my unfair treatment. When are you going to apologize for your role in getting me blocked in 2007?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Being a Wiki-Prefect means never having to say you're sorry.

Ja Ja

Posted by: EricBarbour

Here we go again.

Time to change the name of this forum.
"Wikipedia Review" is no longer sufficiently descriptive or accurate.

How about "WikiRevenge PlayLand"?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

IANAD, but you really oughta see one about that.

Jon

Tagged for Web Searches under • Bad Case Of Clap •

Posted by: EricBarbour

They don't have one for "cynical laughter" or "cynical applause".

Posted by: Casliber

Gosh, this thread got very long and I somehow missed it

naah, WR is a fine name, nice and neutral, and anyone can interpret all they want into it, like a mirror really....

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Forget it, mate. I don't think he does apologies. But that's the least of your worries. He's just accused you, above, of being a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointillism. In my world, that's even worse than being called a ..... a bastard. I'd get him for that.

Posted by: Somey

I'd impose a restriction on Everyking whereby he had to stop posting about his Wikipedia restrictions, but then he'd just go back to Wikipedia and complain about his silly Wikipedia Review restrictions, and they'd have to impose a restriction there on his commenting about those, at which point... well, you get the general idea.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Is it possible to create a special Everyking forum here.

A forum that has absolutely no restrictions on Everyking, where he can say what he wants, and post what he pleases, on any subject he wants. A forum that has only two rules: 1) there are no restrictions on Everyking whatsoever. but 2) in an attempt to even the score from Everyking's unjust subjugation to persecution, abuse and unjustified restriction, all other users are subject to restrictions - that is all other users are denied even the right to read the forum.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

We had to do this once for Nobs, who suffered from pretty much the same condition.

Then he went off to Conservatedia — so I guess it's kinda terminal.

Jon

Posted by: gomi

I've checked, and www.everykingreview.com is available. Go for it!

Posted by: everyking

Are you saying that my commentary about my sanctions is not helpful to the goals of the forum? Surely not--these sanctions are a good example of how the Wikipedia elite abuses its own volunteers, and it's all very instructive about the nature of the arbitration process and the site's culture.

I'm still waiting to see if Lar is going to apologize. This same guy who now says I'm such a good Wikipedian used to say I wasn't a user in good standing, could not be trusted with deleted material (because I was pro-stalker, you see!), and was in fact deserving of a week-long block for defending my right to retain comments on my user talk page.

Posted by: Lar

Well that's not exactly the narrative I would have given but it does fit the facts as I remember them. I believe it is not inconsistent to hold that you made mistakes (as you outlined them above) and yet are a good person. If that gives offense, I apologise for that. But not for holding my view of events to be true... in my view you clearly, at that time, could not be trusted with the material in question, as was, at that time, explained to you, at some considerable length.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Martyrdumb is not necessary.

Living well is the best revenge.

You can be a free person and still work against social evils, but only if you get used to the idea that the perps thereof are never, ever going to apologize, be grateful for your criticism, much less welcome you back into the fold as a full-fleeced member of the flock.

Jon

Posted by: everyking

Why could I not be trusted with the material at that time, Lar? And does that apply to the present day as well?

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Bollocks. Your continual moaning is a good example of the pervasive culture of self-justifying twaddle and myopic concentration on the "rights" of anonymous editors not to be denied, and the reputation of pseudonyms to be defended, whilst real people, who don't edit wikipedia, are chewed up and spat out.

Your trivial self-obsession, and the extraordinary time arbcom have allowed to be wasted debating it, are symptoms of the "staining of gnats and the swallowing of camels" that the wikiprocesses engage in.

That's not to take a view on whether you are cuplrit or victim, it is just to say I don't bloody care, and nor does/should anyone who doesn't have their head up their ass in the myopic soap opera.

If Wikipedia Review is actually about things that matter and not wikipedia's inhouse squabbles, then they should have shown your self-obsession the door many moons ago. You are as bad as Giano.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

For better or worse, WR does not generally show people the door.

Generally the solution is the vacuum of disinterest.

Unfortunately, it seems Wikipedia abhors a vacuum.

Posted by: Wikileaker

One of the reasons I didn't leak all of arbcom-l was that it would have given everyking immense satisfaction. I'm not particularly charmed with the idea of even indirectly doing a service to a constantly whining, spineless simp who, despite all his denials, is still obsessed with Ashlee Simpson. (I do have some stuff about admins using sockpuppets to defame marginally notable living subjects and getting a free pass from arbcom coming up though. )

Posted by: everyking

Thank you for this; it will help me as I attempt to determine your Wikipedia identity.

(See, this is the kind of stuff they say about about me on arbcom-l. No wonder I never got a fair hearing.)

Posted by: everyking

You approach Wikipedia criticism from a very different perspective than I do, Scott: whereas you are primarily concerned with Wikipedia's real-world impact, I am primarily concerned with the healthy functioning of the Wikipedia community. It's disappointing that you seem to feel the latter form of criticism has no value. Also: you say that you "don't bloody care" whether I'm right or wrong, yet you take a position that is completely senseless unless you believe I am completely wrong.

Posted by: Wikileaker

You're "primarily concerned" with the circlejerking of a gang of cultists online, rather than the way a top ten website run by said cultists affects people in the real world? You don't have the moral fortitude God gave goats.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

"Waaaa, Sandifer is picking on me and they've taken his side", is simply not on a par with real people being libelled.

I do not think you are wrong (I do not care), I simply think you are moronic.

Posted by: everyking

It seems to me that some of the recent posts in this thread might be more appropriately located in the tar pit.

Posted by: InkBlot

I'll go further and suggest we take a page from the "Lars and the Real Girl" threads and just stick a fork in this one. Everyking is the only one still outraged here, no one else seems particularly swayed by events. Should this just be locked, so we can all move on?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Ditto.

And if that fails, I suggest we schedule an Internetvention for EK in the Support Group.

I don't believe in ECT, but drugs† and restraints‡ may be indicated.

Ja Ja

† Always remember, Jonny Cache is not a Pharmacist.
‡ Always remember, Jonny Cache is not a BDSMeister.

Posted by: No one of consequence

So does Wikipedia Review, apparently.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Questions/General/List&diff=250475978&oldid=250362998, unless you intend to name the admin. That raises a question of responsibility. I did not publicly identify the account because if I had made a mistake, it would affect the reputation of the other account as well as my own. (Even though I am pseudonymous, I take my on-wiki reputation seriously.) You take no such risks. Very brave.

Posted by: everyking

If this is locked, I will just need to start other threads to deal with future developments. Why not keep it all here?

Posted by: One

Golly, I thought no one should try to identify him, Everyking.

At the least, Everyking has never compared his treatment to krystalnacht.. That's something.

Posted by: everyking

Well, I was wrong. You're an arbitrator, so you're in a much better position than me to figure it out. For all I know, you guys already know who it is and just don't want to tell the peons.

Posted by: One

You were wrong about Wikileaker? You mean you were wrong because you believed he would help you prolong your tiresome grudge against people who aren't even on ArbCom anymore. You thought he should be given special treatment and immunity from scrutiny. Now you see that he doesn't like you, so you want to "out" the bastard.

I'm not impressed, and neither is anyone else.

For your own sake, for the good of Wikipedia, and for the love of God, please move on Everyking.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

...and you know we'd just let him get away with it. Can't we maybe give some "Bureaucracy" threads a chance to get to the top once in while, EK?

Posted by: Mike H

Oh, shit, you promise????

Can you just let. it. go. please?

Posted by: everyking

Fine, I'll be happy to move on. Will the ArbCom please remove the shackles it has placed on me so that I can do so?



I presume that these events merit discussion in this forum. If not, I would like official notification. "Wikipedia Review is not here for you to discuss or criticize Wikipedia administration or the arbitration process." Are you guys going to make a statement like that?

Posted by: Mike H

Bitch, this ain't Roots. Stop being so dramatic. Nobody told you that your name is now Toby. The shackles are there because you obsess over them and have made them so. We're just tired of hearing about it.

Posted by: One

Yes. Bear in mind that the only "shackle" remaining is a prohibition from commenting on Sandifer.

Everyking, move on.

Posted by: everyking

It's preposterous to tell someone to move on from unfair treatment when that unfair treatment has been recently upheld and is still in place. To tell me to "move on" under the present circumstances is nothing but an insult. I'll move on when I'm treated fairly by the ArbCom, which means, at a bare minimum, the removal of the remaining restriction.

Posted by: Mike H

So you're moving on...never?

Posted by: One

ArbCom did you a favor. You were not even technically allowed to appeal, but they voted to remove (almost) all of your restrictions anyway. And when your defenders claimed that the screenshot was a fake (although it was quite genuine), you didn't say a peep. Your remaining restriction is frankly your own fault, and if you would like to imagine that it's a bond of slavery, that's also your own damn fault.

It's in your best interests to move on, and everyone in this thread has pointed that out. There's nothing more that can be said.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Well at least something funny came from all of this.

Posted by: No one of consequence

"I wear the chain I forged in life", replied the Ghost. "I made it link by link, and yard by yard; I girded it on of my own free will, and of my own free will I wore it.

Posted by: everyking

This is a bunch of nonsense. First of all, I was perfectly within my rights to file an appeal at any point during the year--I was explicitly granted the right to one appeal per year. The problem was that some arbitrators decided to adopt a tortuous and implausible interpretation of that, saying that I could only appeal after the end of the first year. That's simply not what the restriction said, and it's disappointing that you're buying into it. Secondly, I am not going to give the ArbCom a shred of credit when it voted to uphold a blatantly political and wrongful restriction based on events that occurred back in 2005. I refuse to look at things that way: "oh, they relieved my burden a little bit, how generous". I am a hard-working, long-term volunteer, completely dedicated to the project, and I won't settle for having my mistreatment scaled back so that it's only moderately shitty. I remember once, years ago, I complained to Jimbo about something, and he pointed out that I was still an admin--as if I were an admin only by the grace of Jimbo or the ArbCom, and I should have been grateful that they hadn't desysopped me (yet). Well, I will never accept that kind of thing.

My best interests? You are right in terms of what's best for me in purely personal, political terms, but I can't play that game--this case is a symptom of a disease that is immensely destructive to Wikipedia, and I see it as a responsibility to try to improve things. I'm not going to say, "well, this problem in front of me is really messy, so I'll go try to find something easier to clean up". No, this is the problem sitting in front of me, and this is the one I'm going to deal with first and foremost.



Oh, you have an opinion, too, Thatcher! Well, let me ask you--what should I have done back in 2005? What should I have done in 2006 to have avoided the extension of the restrictions?

Posted by: Kato

Realized that you had mistakenly got yourself involved in a dysfunctional disaster zone, and gone out and got yourself laid rather than waste any more time there?

Posted by: No one of consequence

I was wondering whether EK was a 15 year-old virgin or a 50 year-old virgin; I could name likely examples of each on Wikipedia.

Posted by: everyking

I don't mind if you think I'm a fool for trying to clean up the mess, and I won't argue with you--what I mind is the people who say that there is no mess, or that it doesn't need to be cleaned up.



You may not have noticed, but I asked you a question above.

Posted by: No one of consequence

I have not followed your case in depth, but I think it is fair to say that filing appeals that asked "Can I file an AfD on an article Phil wrote? Can I comment on an AfD Phil started?" rather impairs the argument that the appeal has nothing to do with Phil and is only about the unfairness of the unilateral nature of the restriction.

I count my blessings every day that I decided not to run for Arbcom, and Kato's advice above is sound in both essential respects.

Posted by: everyking

Oh--see, based on your quote I thought you had some special insight into the situation. But no, in fact you are "commenting without adequately informing yourself beforehand"--shame on you, Thatcher! Don't you know the ArbCom frowns on that?

Posted by: No one of consequence

There's an Arbcom on Wikipedia Review?

(Definitions of "adequate" vary. Back when I used to care, and I was responsible for 90% of enforcement actions at WP:AE, I took great care to become more than adequately informed before ever taking action. Thank God those days are over.)

Posted by: Wikileaker

Thatcher, I wasn't referring to the G. Ryan incidents (although I suppose I could name and shame the accounts involved in that too).

Posted by: Alison

QUOTE

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned." - Siddhartha Buddha

Everyking - seriously. It's time to let it go.

Posted by: everyking

Yeah, it's crap on EK day here at WR, I guess. I remember when I started at this forum it was a place for people to discuss how they had been mistreated by the Wikipedia power structure and how that needed to change. Nowadays, if you approach things from that angle you are seen as vexatious--either you're distracting people from big-picture, real-world impact issues, or you're questioning the rightful and just authority of the almighty ArbCom (and increasingly, the same people will use both arguments).

Posted by: Wikileaker

There's a saying in poker that if you can't spot the mark at the table, it's probably you.

Posted by: No one of consequence

Hmm. If there is even more crap like that that I didn't know about, all the more reason for me to avoid Arbcom and Checkuser.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

To judge by your statements — it's all I have to go on, Moulton — I abduce that your perceptions are becoming a bit distorted. You are preaching to Da Choir Boyz In Da Hood about many things, but us oldtempo retro-gnomes find your tune rings hollow of any note ♪ of effective action.

Reality can be defined as that which persists in hitting us in the head until it makes an impression, and if you think that you can have any impact on anything — over the long haul — without getting yourself squarely on the side of Reality, then you are sadly, not wisely mistaken.

Jon

Posted by: One

"Tortuous"? For real?

Look, people are confined to prison for decades for crimes they did not commit; people die due to negligence or spite; folks are violently suppressed--you are being ridiculous. I agree with you that ArbCom hasn't always been on the level in regards to Everyking. That said, being restricted from commenting on some guy called Sandifer on an internet site which is supposed to be about writing an encyclopedia is such a low level "injustice" that your use of the word is perverse.

It's as if someone cuts you off in traffic, and your demand apologies for years. You talk about how it really isn't about you--you just want to improve the fairness of society. You wanna tell us how injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. I'm sorry, but in this context, it's offensive.

Sometimes people have to live with the fact that they were cut off. And you, Everyking, will have to somehow survive without talking about a guy called Sandifer on a site called Wikipedia. Yeah, it sucks, but compared to being imprisoned, or "shackled," or "oppressed," or--hell--losing your job--it's not such an onerous burden. If you would stop obsessing about it, I promise you that it would go away. But you do not actually want it to go away. You want to score points against those who have supposedly trespassed you.

"Where is my apology Lar? I will not rest until justice is done!" Please stop.

This response is baffling. You are playing a game--don't you see that? Tell me, Everyking, how did http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22249&view=findpost&p=157948 help improve the encyclopedia? How would the content of Wikipedia improve if you were able to comment on some guy called Sandifer? If you were solely concerned for the project, you would recognize that your "shackles" are entirely meaningless.

No one put it well:

Posted by: Moulton

Ah, go on Jon.

But first, please check your libretto.

This is a different fursuited cast from the one I'm playing in.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I think we're all bozos on this bus — uh-oh! there's my stop ⌂

Jon

Posted by: Somey

You could say that about a lot of things that go on in Wikiland, or almost anywhere else on the internet, for that matter.

The real problem here is that this is a fairly unusual restriction, which only exists because Sandifer is a total jerkwad narcissist who for some weird reason is quite well-liked by Raul, Jimbo, Shankbone, and the rest of 'em. It really doesn't relate well to the Big Picture, so no, I'm afraid it's not the sort of topic we should be all that concerned about. The point has now been made, multiple times - it's a stupid restriction, it should never have been placed, and the people who insist on maintaining it are being silly at best, and at worst, sadistic.

So... EK, this isn't personal on our part. When people tell you to "let it go" and "move on," they're not (or shouldn't be) telling you to ignore the fact that you've been (and are still being) insulted. Practically everyone here has been insulted by WP in one way or other... They - we are just saying that we know about it already, and there's little or no need for you to be a broken record about it.

Finally, folks should try to remember that EK's biggest "offense," the one that got him desysopped, was a bogus accusation made in support of one of the most embarrassing and scandalous episodes in Wikipedia history - the NSS/Overstock/Byrne-Bagley-Weiss affair. (We need a shorter name for that, btw). He actually was one of the only WP'ers who didn't take sides in that dispute while practically everyone else on WP took the wrong side, and in that instance he at least tentatively offered to do the right thing. By desysopping him, WP did the wrong thing. And now, instead of trying to fix things, WP continues to stick the needle in, and not for any good reason - they're doing solely because they know it hurts.

I think what Mr. One is saying up above, EK, is that you've got to stop telling them it hurts. Until you do, they'll keep it up, as long as they think it's working.

Posted by: Moulton

Title: Chains
Artist: Everyking
Composer: Gerry Goffin, Carole King, and Barsoom Tork Associates

Chains, ArbCom's got me locked up in chains.
And they ain't the kind,
That you can free.
Ooh these chains of One, got a hold on me, yeah.

Chains, well I can't break away from these chains.
Can't run around, 'cause I'm not free.
Ooh, these chains of One won't let me be, yeah.

I wanna tell you, NewYorkBrad
I think you're fine.
I'd like to bug you,
But, dammit, I'm imprisoned by these chains.

ArbCom's got me locked up in chains,
And they ain't the kind,
That you can free,
Ooh, these chains of One got a hold on me.

Please believe me when I tell you,
Your quips defeat.
I'd like to diss them,
But I can't break away from all of these chains.

ArbCom's got me locked up in chains.
And they ain't the kind,
That you can free.
Ooh, these chains of One got a hold on me, yeah.
Chains, chains of One, chains of One.

CopyClef 2009 Gerry Goffin, Carole King, and Barsoom Tork Associates.
Resurrection Hackware. All wrongs reversed.

Posted by: Milton Roe

And we need a slogan to stop it.


Every King a Man but No One Craps on The Crown

There you go. That's about all we can do for you now, I'm afraid. Unless you can find some good assassins.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

I'm somehow reminded of the parable of the persistent widow:

Anyone weary yet?

Posted by: Somey

This is the key difference, y'see - the widow came unto him, meaning that she showed up in person. If Wikipedia were a real, physical entity, EK could probably just show up a few times at their offices with a group of day-laborers hired to carry protest signs, and the problem would be cleared up lickety-split. ("What do we want?" "No Sandifer-related civility restrictions!" "When do we want it?" "NOW!") He might even try the WMF offices in San Francisco, but they'll probably claim it isn't their problem. Either way he'd need a marching permit from the city...

As long as he's just a few lines of text on a computer screen, they'll just ignore him, at least until it starts to look like he's no longer being hurt by it all.

Posted by: Floydsvoid

Urrrgghhh.... you're hurting my little brain.

This is a parable, there was no widow or weary worn judge.

I'm not religious (tho' I can fake it) but the meaning I get here is that if you whine enough to God he'll answer your prayers, just so he won't be bothered by your sorry ass anymore.

So if God can get worn down by whiny persistence, then someOne mortal should be too.

Posted by: Moulton

With all due respect to Daniel Brandt, what really gets their attention is atrocious song parodies.

Posted by: everyking

I guess this argument can be summed up as "Wikipedia doesn't really matter, so stop complaining". But if I thought Wikipedia didn't really matter, I wouldn't work so hard to improve it--how about you? Is it all really just trivial to you? You take your ArbCom work seriously, I hope. Think about it for a while--imagine yourself in my position; imagine that you've been denigrated by the site's elite for years and officially branded as a stalker for purely political reasons. Then imagine that, unlike almost anyone else, you choose not to leave in disgust--what sort of attitude would you have regarding the situation? Anybody who says they'd be cool with it is a damn liar.


The purpose of that request for clarification was to illustrate the absurdity of the restriction--how it prohibits me from doing perfectly ordinary and inoffensive things. If you think I actually give a shit about Phil Sandifer, or have even the slightest interest in spending my time following him around, you're completely out of your mind.
Mod note: fixed quoting. Not sure why though...

Posted by: everyking

Yes, I've always thought that. Most likely the restriction would have been lifted some time ago if I had just kept my mouth shut about it all. But it isn't about the practical effect of the restriction, it's about the principle of the thing. If the ArbCom lifts a restriction after a long period of calm silence, in response to a meek and humble request, then none of it served any purpose at all--I would essentially be accepting that the ruling was correct. But if the ArbCom lifts a restriction in response to continuous righteous outrage, then it effectively acknowledges that the restriction was wrongful and thereby moves us all one small step closer to sane project governance.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

One thing I learnt a few years ago was as soon as you hear yourself use the word "principle" you need to take a raincheck, because you have told yourself to suspend reasoning and balance. That is not to say that principles count for nothing, just that the reason you have justified it in that way is a tacit acknowledgement that you are getting to the unreasonable effort stage.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Yes, indeed.

See influx of vested Wikipedians. At worst, they are part of the system which mistreated you. At best, they're treated with dignity and even respect on Wikipedia, and can't possibly relate to your sense of grievance. While there's a limit to the damage one can do to a pseudonym, a committed volunteer to any enterprise deserves, in most case, a certain level of respect and gratitude from its leaders.


With respect, this analogy seems awfully self-serving, considering that the Committee upon which you currently sit is the one who "cut [him] off in traffic." If it's really not a big deal either way, why doesn't the Committee apologize to him? The most straightforward conclusion is that the Committee has as much stake in insisting that it was right all along as does Everyking.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Thanks for the old clip. Ah, 1964-- everybody's there. Even Brian Epstein. Ringo playing piano. George Martin at his mixer, and too early for drugs or fame or Yoko to be mucking things up. The world is forever young. It's Beatle Heaven.

That's what always bothered me about Lady Diana, and I never figured it out till now. She looked like Ringo Starr in 1964. Could've been brother and sister, they could.

Posted by: Kato

Proab. One of the many attitudes you espouse that just don't make any sense to me, is this notion you have of "the leadership". Every time you use that word it makes me cringe.

Jimbo Wales is the "leadership". Paid employees are the "leadership". Named PR agents are "the leadership".

Scruffy dudes who bothered to stick around longer than most, and perform antics on the Wiki-political pages every other day, are not "the leadership". They are just players in an internal game. Like you, but with a few more levels to their belts.

Wikipedia editors are all prisoners. And like any badly managed jail, there are bullies who get to dominate others. And gangs. And abuse. Arbcom is just one gang.

If you went to visit a dysfunctional jail as an observer, would you rail against individual prisoners or gangs - exposing their misdeeds? Or would you seek accountability from the jailers, the governors, or the prison system itself?

Any observer worth their salt would speak out against the jailers, the governors, and the prison system. Using incidents of abuse as examples.

Rather than being an observer, you seem to be operating from within the confines of the prison grounds itself. Keen to expose the misdeeds of fellow inmates, rather than the situation that made them that way. Oblivious to the real "leadership" who materially profit from the situation.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Well put, but I don't think he's reading it.

Posted by: Moulton

Title: ArbCom Rock
Artist: Kato
Composer: Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: http://ultra.musenet.org:8020/media/JailHouseRock.mid

ArbCom threw a party in the Wiki jail.
The prison band was there and they began to wail.
The band was jumpin’ and the joint began to swing.
You should’ve heard da' bummed out jailbirds sing...
Let’s rock, everybody, let’s rock.
Everybody in the whole cell block
Was dancin’ to the ArbCom rock.

NewYorkBrad played the tenor saxophone,
Thatcher was blowin’ on the slide trombone.
The funky boy gurl from Indy went crash, boom, bang,
The whole rhythm section was the purple weenie gang.
Let’s rock, everybody, let’s rock.
Everybody in the whole cell block
Was dancin’ to the ArbCom rock.

Non-Notable Lar said to Allie C:
You’re the cutest non-virgin I ever did see.
I sure would be delighted with some nookie for free,
Come on and do the Laundromat Rock with me.
Let’s rock, everybody, let’s rock.
Everybody in the whole cell block
Was dancin’ to the Laundromat Rock.

Everyking was a sittin’ on a block of stone
Way over in the corner weepin’ all alone.
Kato said, hey, buddy, don’t you be no square.
If you can’t find a partner, I have a rod to spare.
Let’s rock, everybody, let’s rock.
Everybody in the whole cell block
Was dancin’ to the ArbCom rock.

Odd Nature said to Monk, for heaven’s sake,
No one’s lookin’, now’s your chance to make a break.
Moulton turned to Jaime and he said, nix nix,
I wanna stick around a while and get my kicks.
Let’s rock, everybody, let’s rock.
Everybody in the whole cell block
Was dancin’ to the ArbCom rock.

CopyClef 2009 Elvis Presley and Barsoom Tork Associates.
North American Bupkes, Reclusive Internet Dementors.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

It is a good analogy. In many prisons the official management (wardens, guards, staff) more or less turn over the operation to the inmates. They in turn form gangs and establish turf. One of the outcomes of this is a brutal and punitive environment that no enlightened state would be willing to impose directly. But this is acceptable because the worst abuses are not carried out directly by agents of the system but are inflicted upon the inmates by "the community" of other inmates.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

They don't call 'em http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/12/messages/610.html fer nuttin!

Jon

Posted by: dtobias

But nobody's forced to go there or stay there. It's more like people checking themselves into a lunatic asylum.

----------------
Now playing: http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/jim+croce/track/ill+have+to+say+i+love+you+in+a+song
via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Wrong Song, Dan —

Now playing : http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/eagles/track/hotel+california via http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/

Ja Ja

Posted by: One

This is good advice.

I used to be a debt collector. When I would hear a customer say that it's the "principle of the matter," it was code for, "I won't pay you that $35.12 no matter how ruinous it is to me."

Everyking, I have not said Wikipedia doesn't matter. The site isn't trivial, but your remaining sanction is, and you have lost all perspective on it.

Posted by: Moulton

For another perspective on the the role of sanctions in community governance models, see this Google Knol article:



See also:

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Of course one could also ask "Why I'm I working for people who will ruin people for $35.12?"

Posted by: One

I would wager that anyone working in the private sector in the U.S. works for an entity that would do just that if it were advantageous to have such a policy. One of the reasons that "principled" individuals are irrational is because nobody actually cares. The corporate entity doesn't have any awareness whatsoever, and individuals within it only care as far as their involvement is concerned. The "principled" are really engaged in a one-sided game against players who don't even care and who will liberally give apologies because they did nothing "wrong" themselves.

The "principled" want to say that they confronted the beast and won, and that it's some sort of moral victory for humanity. It requires illusions of grandeur to cast one's self in that role.

At any rate, we didn't ruin Everyking--he is only shackled in his own mind. If it wasn't for his over-the-top reactions, I doubt anyone would even care to maintain them. Somey probably said it best.

Posted by: LaraLove

I agree that the use of words like "torturous" is over-the-top, but I think it helps put into perspective how this remaining restriction impacts everyking. With the threat of closing this thread, he responded that he'd open another one. At least he didn't threaten to derail or otherwise interrupt every other thread with discussion of his "restraining order" and the circumstances surrounding it.

On the flip side of it, there's not really anything that can be done at this point, everyking. Unlike a lot of the criticism of Wikipedia discussed here, this situation is very specific to you. I think people rallied behind you at one point, but the protest has wound down and the protesters moved on... all but you, of course.

As it is, I think if you want to use this thread as your personal blog on the issue, people have the ability not to click it if they're not interested. As long as you don't go all Moulton on our asses, I don't see what it matters. As far as you holding on to it, from what I've read, there's really little chance of you getting this restriction lifted. At least right now. I would have left long ago if I'd been in your shoes, but you've hung around. I think you'd be happier on the project if you just put this behind you as best as you can, and waited it out. Perhaps a little time of peace would result in the eventual lifting of the restriction.

One correctly noted that people often go to great lengths over "the principle of the matter". I get a spider bite, bacterial infection and abscess follow and I get a bill for $1,006. $60 of that for a $2.25 bottle of saline. That's actual figures there. I sat in my living room, bill in hand and various costs of this exact same brand of saline pulled up on my computer screen and vowed to pay a 2600% markup over my dead body. But then, after I calmed down, I figured, "Fuck it." I've got better things to do with my time than argue endlessly with the corrupt United States medical system, and it's better to lose $57.75 for an overpriced bottle of salt water than to lose much more over the principle of the matter.

You're not even out any cash, everyking. Just a smudge on the reputation of your psuedonym.

Posted by: everyking

I said "tortuous" (in reference to the ArbCom's contorted interpretation), not "torturous". "Torturous" would be over the top.

Posted by: LaraLove

Oh. Check that out. I totally misread it. Apologies. Still, though. Even without the help, it's still clear to see how this situation has impacted you, so the rest still works.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Tagged for Web Searches under • Transference Trap • †

† Always remember, Jonny Cache is not a Shrink ‡

‡ Except sometimes when it's really cold.

Posted by: everyking

It certainly hasn't taken you long to change your tune, One. It's unfortunate that we elect people to change the ArbCom, but it works the other way around. Who would have thought you'd go from expressing support to suggesting that my ulterior motive is to harass Phil Sandifer, and within only one or two months?

Posted by: Moulton

Title: Arb Without Pity
Artists: One, Everyking and the ArbCom Chorus

When you're young and arrogant as me
And bedeviled by the crap I see
Why do people bitch and gripe
And fill my day with tripe
What an Arb without pity can do

If we stop to gaze upon a screen
People talk about how bad we seem
Ours is not an easy age
We're like tigers in a cage
What an Arb without pity can do

Projects have problems, many problems
We need an understanding heart
Why don't they help us, try to help us
Before this icky wiki planet falls apart

Take these snarky quips and hold your fire
I'm afraid this long complaint's too dire
How can we feed One some jive
How can Everyking survive
When these little tunes tear you in two
What an Arb without pity can do

How can we feed One some jive
How can Everyking survive
When these little tunes tear you in two
What an Arb without pity can do

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

I think you failed to understand my point. Don't worry, it is not likely to negatively effect your endeavors, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere as you make your way through life.

Posted by: everyking

You're on a roll, man--what is that, three song parodies in one thread? Well, keep it up; these posts are better than most of what I'm seeing in this thread.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider

Wikipedia as One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? The average editor is a Billy Bibbit-style character who, as McMurphy was disturbed to learn, was a "voluntary".


I don't know ....... I've skimmed the songs and the posts, and I'd say they're about the same. As for your problems with these Wiki-folks, have you ever considered turning to the dark arts for help? Voodoo dolls and a few pins, for instance......

Posted by: One

I didn't say any of this crap, but I don't doubt you read it in your head. To make clear: I don't think you're trying to harass Sandifer, but your endless protest on this otherwise meaningless restriction makes people doubt themselves (see SirFozzie's posts early in this thread, Cla68's, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22249&view=findpost&p=151958, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22249&view=findpost&p=152074, and Doc G's, which are basically the same message as several others). I was going to nominate you for RFA until you imagined Wikileaker to be some sort of savior would dish up some dirt on your enemies (and now you want him outed--how long did it take you to change your tune, eh?)

I'll probably still vote for you, but it's in your best interests to move on. I'm sincerely saying that as someone sympathetic to your position.

Posted by: everyking

Why is this Wikileaker issue so important to you? I thought people should not pressure him/her about his/her Wikipedia identity as long as he or she seemed willing to disclose the ArbCom archives--when Wikileaker announced that he or she was not going to do it, and to top it off hurled crazy insults at me, I changed my mind. What's so bad about that?

Posted by: Milton Roe

Easy words to confuse, since they're from the same root. They used to inflict pain on people for interrogation purposes, by twisting their limbs until joints gave. Hence, torture from Latin root for twisty.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Posted by: Milton Roe

Whereas, if they'd said "I won't pay you that $35.12 no matter how ruinous it is to me," that would have been suitable code for "It's the "principle of the matter"? Or is the problem that many lawyers and bill collectors do not have any concept of the latter idea, so sometimes this really doesn't have a translation?

Personally, I think much historical progress in legal precident has been made by people fighting out things which would have been cheaper just to settle for the least amount of money or time or pain, like any nussiance lawsuit. That may not be true of divorces or other vendettas, but certainly most of the historical progress in the eternal fight of the individual agains the government, and the oppressed against the oppressors, has been that way.

Rosa Parks really could more easily have just moved along, even if her feet were tired. I'm sure it cost her more than the equivalent of $35.12 not to. She certainly could not have had any inkling or foretelling of fame. Probably she just expected to be screwed with by the system until she was ultimately sorry she'd ever done anything resistive. But you get angry, and do things that aren't perfectly logical.

The other night a frend of mine told a story about Southern Justice, which is germaine. He was in Louisiana or Georgia or someplace like that in 1965 and sitting in a friends' appartment drinking beer, and looking over the courtyard of the place, when he noticed that some of the doors had red stickers on them. He asked his friend, who was the son of the manager, what those were. "Oh, they're the ones with negroes. Those units have to pay in cash at the first of the month, no checks."

So my friend, fired up with civil rights indignation brought with him from Pennsylvannia where he was from, went and started tearing stickers off doors. He got about halfway through before being arrested for "Public intoxication; drunk and disorderly, destruction of private property."

He didn't think he was drunk, just angry. After a night in the drunk tank, however, he was led along with a line of drunks before a judge. Outside the door of the courtroom was the barf barrel, a 50 gallon drum where any drunk who felt like doing so, could. And the smell caused those who might have made it through, to fail. Everyone threw up.

He could hear a pattern in the treatment of those before him.

"Charge is public drunkenness, how do you plead?"
"Guilty"
"Fifteen dollars and time served. Next."

"Charge is public drunkenness, how do you plead?"
"Guilty"
"Fifteen dollars and time served. Next."

When it came his time, he said "Not guilty" and explained his case. He was cut off.

"Son, if you plead 'not guilty' you will go back to jail. Bail on all these charges will be something you cannot pay. You will spend months till we get to your hearing. Our public defender is not very bright. You will likely be found guilty and sentenced to further jail. You will pay all expenses and a fine. Now, perhaps I didn't hear you quite correctly?"

He looks around. There is nobody but the bailiff as witness to this. And a line of puking people.
The recorder does not seem to be listening.

"I meant 'Guilty'"

<<Plonk.>> "Fifteen dollars and time served."

He supposes in retrospect that he should have stood on principle, but also in retrospect is rather glad he didn't. He's white, and no Rosa Parks.

Posted by: One

Heh; that's a good story. Your friend had a much better possible principled stand than I'm likely to see in my life though.

Pretty much no one is Rosa Parks, but they certainly cast themselves in that role.

You are right about setting precedents. How else would we get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Post? I don't admire the participants in that case though.

Too much Vulcan blood in me, I guess. Maybe working as a collector for five years has poisoned my attitudes. I think life is too short to fight for Pyrrhic victories.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

For sure, but the fundamental point is that only some principles are worth fighting for. I don't hear anyone seeing that with EveryKing's issue. Indeed, a classic diversionary argument, just because there are principles worth making a stand for, doesn't mean that all principles are worth making a stand for, which is hinting back to my original advice (roughly translated as "EveryKing, you are being a dolt. Save your energy for when you are truly in trouble.")

Posted by: One

Posted by: Moulton

Thick ya verra much.


If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

http://www.wooster.edu/economics/js/law_archive/pierson_v_post.html 3 Cal R 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (Supreme Court of New York, 1805)

If I ever see another case cited to Wikipedia I think I will throw-up.

Posted by: One

Sorry. I agree with you in this subject area.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

No, if you're part of the precipitate, you used to be part of the solution, but dropped out.

Some people are too φucking dense ever to be a part of the solution in the first place.

Jon

Posted by: Floydsvoid

Now that's heavy

Posted by: One

This is correct. I think the community is only likely to make a big deal out of the restriction if Everyking does. If not, all they see is his excellent editing record and the irrational abuse directed toward him by editors I don't care to name.

Rootology recently pointed this out to me. Consider the ArbCom sanction against Rootology. He was fully banned for 20 months. Upon unblock, he was given these terms (much more restrictive than what's imposed on Everyking):
I believe Rootology is still under these restrictions, yet he is almost universally acknowledged to be an editor in good standing, confirmed by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rootology.

Like Doc glasgow said, the community decides how things are perceived, not ArbCom. If you make your sub-trivial editing restriction into a big deal, people might wonder "gee, why did ArbCom sanction him so harshly?," or they might think, "wow, he actually is fixated on Sandifer." The best way to dislodge these misperception is to move forward. It's not an issue unless you continue making it one.

Posted by: Casliber

My co-arb makes a very good point in the immediately preceding post. I worry that alot of this discussion is doing more harm to any future runs at RfA than any sanctions are.

Posted by: everyking

But you see, I think it should be an issue. Why did the ArbCom retain the restriction? You know why, but I don't. I think the fact that the ArbCom continues to punish a long-standing, hard-working volunteer for purely political reasons is something that should be an issue. That is something that goes to the very root of the project's administrative dysfunction.

Posted by: Proabivouac

Spoken like a true third-party observer.

Posted by: EricBarbour

And how is that ForesticPig http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22044 doing?...........

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Tagged for Web Searches under • The Most Inane Discussion on The Wikipedia Review •
Tagged for Web Searches under • And That's Saying A Lot !!! •

Really, Mods, this has gotten to be just like Deja Nobs all over again.

Time to create a Roll ↑ ↑ & Away Subforum …

Jon

Posted by: One

I don't believe that any current arbitrator thought they were punishing you. Generally, we are supposed to be in the prevention business rather than the punishment business. In this case, I detected no malice toward you from current arbitrators. Based on their statements, they figured that the restriction had absolutely no impact on your editing or the encyclopedia, so there wasn't a pressing need to remove it.

Based on Rootology's experience, I think it's clear that your "shackles" are of your own construction. If you really want to be in good standing in the community (whatever that means), you should stop dwelling on this.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Wrong Song, Moulton …


Ja Ja Follow The Bouncing Ball

Posted by: Moulton

I'll Take "Or Else" for Twenty Quatloos, Alex.

Notwithstanding the disagreement on whether the restrictions are prophylactic rather than punitive, I agree that there is an issue here regarding the efficacy of administrative interventions of one flavor or another.

Restrictions which are backed up by some kind of enforcement mechanism are a commonplace feature of human culture, dating back thousands of years. Every child learns the meaning of "Thou Shalt Not, Or Else!"

There has long been an issue of the wisdom of a Rules and Sanctions Regime which issues edicts of the form, "Thou Shalt Not, Or Else."

Nowadays, in the 21st Century epoch of Systems Science and Ethical Best Practices, the issue has been studied intensively by world-class academics and systems thinkers. Notable among them is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Senge, whose name we have http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22449&st=0&p=157725&#entry157725 in these pages from time to time.

There are better alternatives to the Rules and Sanctions Regime, but they require some familiarity with the more advanced material in "the sum of all human knowledge" since the early days of Machiavellian sword-rattling.

What fascinates me about these otherwise forgettable cases is the method of self-blindness that blocks insightful and scholarly discussion of the evolution from the prophylaxis of Machiavellian sword-rattling to http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=22432&st=0&p=151875&#entry151875 for an exemplary learning organization.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

Everyking, although you and I have discussed your restrictions, and you know of my view that by last year the time had come to lift at least the great majority of them, I don't believe you have ever asked me directly this year why I was in agreement with leaving the one remaining restriction in place.

This is not a proper forum for conducting ArbCom business, but if you were to ask me that question either by e-mail or on Wikipedia, I would answer it. I do not believe that your interests are best served by further publicizing the matter, but that is up to you.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Nor is WR a "Missed Connections" ad for people who had their heart broke on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I think you've misjudged his interests if you think that they're not best served by further publicity.

Posted by: No one of consequence

That depends on what his interests actually are.

(edit:Didn't see that Kelly beat me to it)

Posted by: everyking

I regard it as being in Wikipedia's best interests to publicize the matter further--as everyone knows, I support open decision-making and disapprove of ArbCom secrecy. So I'm not going to ask Brad for an explanation in private, but I would appreciate it if he would offer one either here or on Wikipedia.

Posted by: One

It clearly isn't about the adminship or "good standing." Good call, Kelly.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Woodnet it bee more e-propriate to move this disscussin' over to the WikiEn List, where you needn't fear keeping Any One awake ???

Jon

Posted by: everyking

You've really gotten into the whole secret decision-making thing, haven't you? I think that the position of candidates on openness vs. secrecy should be central to all future ArbCom elections. All candidates should agree to conduct their deliberations in public if elected and give members of the community reasonable explanations in public.

Posted by: Moulton

A fish rots from the head down.

Alas, the role models at the top of the totem pole set the precedent for arbitrary and capricious fiat, unsupported by evidence, analysis, reasoning, or any semblance of due process.

Dictat is as dictat does.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

I know! — We could barter a hostage exchange.

We could make a deal with ArbConTroll that they will lift the restraining order against EEK if ten (10) people here volunteer to observe a restraining order that keeps them from interacting with Phil Sandflea.

Hell, I'll bet we could get … oh, I dunno … Three Hundred (300) !!!

Then EEK could go back to using email for his Wub Wetters like ordinary people.

Whaddaya Say !?

Jon

Posted by: Somey

If only we could...

Everyking actually has six WR threads devoted pretty much solely to him now, and probably one or two more that I couldn't find on a quick search, so he might qualify for his own "Notable Editors" subforum now. Then we could temporarily add that subforum to the "View New Posts Blocklist," so that it wouldn't show up under "New Posts: Main" and "Non-Media" - at least until he finally gets the message, assuming that ever happens.

Another idea I had was to make certain threads "non-bumpable." That would be a bit more work for me of course, so I probably shouldn't even bring it up... but it would be a fairly good compromise alternative to closing threads like this completely. I think MySQL 5 can handle an "ORDER BY COALESCE(OverrideDate, LastPostDate) -type of clause, though it might be a slight performance hit.


We could just use our BadWords filter to replace all instances of "Phil Sandifer" with "He Who Must Be Protected From Criticism At All Costs" automatically? Would that be sufficient for them?

I mean, Wikipedia has a BadWords filter too, though they don't use it for much... I don't see why they don't, though, given that Sandifer is still active there.

Posted by: everyking

You'd think I was some kind of terrorist! I already know that feeling. If people don't care about arbitration issues, they shouldn't read this thread, and they can just avoid the "bureaucracy" section altogether.

Posted by: Somey

The "Notable Editors" subforums were never meant to convey that kind of connotation, though I do realize that's been the effect for some people... More to the point, IMO whoever's still reading this thread is probably doing it for laughs. Unfortunately, where they should be laughing at the ArbCom for maintaining such a silly restriction, they're probably now laughing at you for "obsessing" over it.

What you should do, if you have time and you really want to continue to work this thing, is try to come up with a list of similar restrictions applied to other WP users. This would give you a new angle to pursue, instead of beating this particular dead horse. We already know about Rooty's, for example.... Does anyone have a ballpark figure for how many such restrictions are in place? I'd be surprised if it was less than ten, but I really have no idea.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Too bad Herschel is permablocked, for my favorte wide-restriction was the one that banned him, or anybody who knows him, from editing LaRouche articles, or articles having anything remotely to do with LaRouche. Or something like that. It was awe-inspiring.

Posted by: One

I have never deliberated on your case. I feel free to discuss it here because I have not, nor will I ever, discuss it on ArbCom. On January 1, I told arbcom-l that I am recused from all things Everyking. The others did not give me consent to repost their words, so I will not leak their messages. Apparently, neither will Wikileaker.

Tough cookies. Move on.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Good move. Your hectoring presence in any discussion of a miscreant Wikipeidan will probably pay greater political dividends that actually taking part in any process deciding related matters. That Everyking is a lame miscreant Wikipeidan makes the task easier.

Posted by: One

Well, before casting his vote, Everyking basically demanded to know how I would vote on his restrictions. I said I would remove all of them--which I would. In this circumstance, I had to recuse.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yes, the comrade judge has not seen the secret evidence,
and based upon the instructions of the prosecutor, is now
prepared to pass down the execution order. Allahu akbar.

(Why is it that every time WPers talk on WR about a sock who http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23100, or
a user like Everyking who "is trouble just by existing", they end up sounding like
Stalinist-era Politburo members?.........just wondering.)

Posted by: Random832

Uh... what? You had to know at the time you would recuse.

Posted by: Kurt M. Weber

Once again, the Arbitrary Committee is demonstrating its utter illegitimacy.

Posted by: maggot3

This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read from a seemingly reasonably intelligent person.

Posted by: One

Yep. I don't think it would be legitimate to pass judgment on users where it can fairly be said that I have prejudged them. Same for Mantanmoreland incarnations (but for the opposite reason). I'm recused on all of them.

The point is that I am biased in his favor, not against him as GBG suggested.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Friends like that...

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

I am not sure whether recusal is necessary if an arbitrator has formed a view of a situation based exclusively on reading on-wiki discussion, where he or she wasn't actually a participant in the underlying events. In any case, however, if One/CHL had participated in the most recent discussion regarding Everyking, there is no reasonable possibility that it would have affected the result.

I won't post again in this thread, as a majority of the WR contributors seem to believe that it has become a form of WR inside-baseball remote from the purpose of the site, and because questions by parties to arbitration decisions about arbitrators' views really should be raised, if at all, in the Other Place.

Posted by: One

I'm sure everyking feels that way, as he does with everyone else who has suggested that he should move on (bastards like SirFozzie, Cla68, and Thatcher--I'm happy to be in that group).

I still intend to vote for him at RFA, as I did before. I recommend that he at least put some time behind this thread. But Everyking is free to do as he does.


Maybe not, but I made some pretty sweeping recusal promises that I intend to honor. Among other things, I said that I would recuse from cases where one of the principle parties is a prolific WR contributor that I have interacted with here. There are some cases where this isn't clear cut, but with Everyking it was.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Like the criticism of Lincoln on the Emancipation Proclamation. Frees slave everywhere he does not control. Does nothing everywhere he does control. Of course if you made "aggressive war" on behalf of Everyking you could change the balance and redeem yourself too.

Posted by: Random832

...right. Which makes you dishonest when saying "I would [vote to] remove all of them" rather than "I would recuse and therefore not vote".

(How EK chooses to allocate his ACE votes is his business, but your answer was incorrect and you knew it to be incorrect at the time.)

Posted by: One

Wrong. I answered him before formulating my fairly sweeping recusal statements, and recusal of WR members in particular. This was in response to accusations about my "outing" and participation on this forum. I'm sorry for not specifically updating him that I would recuse, but you might remember that election. Everyking was not on my mind.

EDIT: Actually, I did tell Everyking immediately after the election that I would recuse because he asked. He seemed fine with it given that I still wanted to nominate him for adminship.

Posted by: Random832

My mistake then - just going on what you said here it looked bad.

Posted by: everyking

When I talk about open decision-making, that is not automatically code for "please publish the ArbCom archives". In this case, I was saying that NYB should explain his views on my case in public, not in private.

Posted by: One

Read what he wrote again. Go ask him on wikipedia.

Posted by: No one of consequence

He will answer you publicly if you ask on wiki instead of here. He does not think WR is the best place for WP inside business.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

You should ask them to clarify the extent of the "restraining order", unless asking for clarification on this count against your annual rate limit. You could ask about that detail too but only if you say "if the answer is 'yes', please forget that I asked this question".



If this is true it would only be fair to give Snowy the same restriction (but then you'd have a major advantage, being able to claim squatter's rights on a much greater portion of the project, so I'm sure this won't happen unless he pisses off somebody important).

Also you might want to avoid giving him any ideas, on the outside chance that he hasn't already thought of them.

This is just general advice, I'm not familiar with his overall character and have no opinion on what he is or isn't likely to do.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Is there such a thing as Bump ↓ Down ???

Just Asking …

Jon

Posted by: No one of consequence

I can find ignore user but I can't find ignore topic. Have to do it manually I guess.

Posted by: everyking

Apparently there is no longer a limit, but probably only because the ArbCom forgot to mention that it wanted to keep the limit in place when it voted to lift all of the sanctions aside from the restraining order. Knowing the ArbCom, I'll go to appeal again in a few months and they'll tell me the limit is still in place after all.



I think the ArbCom's position is that I can edit articles edited by Phil, unless he has edited them recently, or something. Actually, I don't really know, but since I'm not going to consciously avoid things edited by Phil anymore, I imagine the issue will come up eventually.

[Mod note: fixed quotes]

Posted by: CrazyGameOfPoker

It's mostly moot, really. Phil's relegated himself to editing primarily articles on fiction. I don't think he's really even attempted to talk to Everyking unless it was regarding the restriction at ArbCom since it was passed. I may have missed something, but I don't believe there's ever even been a case of entrapment with him.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Maybe you'd be better off avoiding yes/no questions then.
I'd ask them to write down exactly which restrictions are currently in effect, and to define "interact with" to the best of their ability, rather than multiple choices to be mixed-n-matched in the worst possible way.
In other words try not to give them any novel ideas either.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Everyking doesn't want the restrictions clarified. He enjoys being the martyr; it makes him relevant, something he otherwise wouldn't be. The last thing in the world he wants is for this situation to resolve itself quietly.

Posted by: Wikileaker

Spot on, Kelly. I suspect that with Ashlee Simpson's recent baby, she's no longer appealing to EK as an obsession; he now has a void in his life that he needs to fill by crying out for attention, by being a topic of conversation.

Ignore his attention whoring, unless you're prone to moments of weakness like me and wish to mock him mercilessly.

Posted by: Kato

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=22432&view=findpost&p=151863 overload, Kelly.

Moulton? Get yourself over here! You're needed.

There's no evidence that Everyking is really thinking in those terms. (Though there is plenty of evidence that nobody gives a crap either way, it should be said.)

Posted by: Kelly Martin

I'd not be surprised if even Everyking doesn't realize that he's behaving this way. People routinely act against rational interest in the pursuit of emotional satisfaction, often without realizing they're doing it, and I've seen nothing to suggest that Everyking is particularly good at avoiding this trap.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

That's "Cai. R.", not "Cal. R." "Cai." is Cairns, who edited an early nominative reporter of New York common-law decisions. "Cal." would be California.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Thanks I never would have caught that myself but the opinion date is during a period preceding the USA's occupation and subsequent annexation of California. As the opinion is not in Spanish you must be right. The same error is uncorrected from the Wooster College website, where the text of the opinion is taken from. Never heard of Wooster and they don't seem to have a law school. They cite what appears to be a casebook, Cooter and Ulen, Law and Economics (Scott Foresman and Company 1988), pp. 126-27. I imagine the error was Wooster's, not the case book's. Just can't trust anything on the internet.

Posted by: everyking

Wikileaker, I want to thank you once again for participating in this thread. I have no doubt that you must indeed be a former arbitrator, for your attitude is like the pure, distilled essence of the ArbCom, perfectly representing the hateful mentality and incoherent reasoning that spawned these sanctions. Admittedly, the current arbitrators don't seem to be so vile, but they are nevertheless upholding a past decision that was produced by that hateful mentality, so they must take some measure of blame. If you support this restriction I'm under, review Wikileaker's comments and consider what you are really supporting.

On another note, I have thought over my interaction with Lar earlier in this thread, and I now believe I was too harsh. While Lar was wrong about those past events, and I wish he would apologize for his role, I was also a bit out of line during that episode in 2007--and in any case, there was no need for me to drag up that incident in this thread.

Posted by: Lar

Thanks... No worries, Everyking.

Posted by: everyking

More than six months later, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_for_lifting_of_EK3_restrictions. Will it be any different this time? Regardless of the outcome, I'll continue to appeal semi-annually; I'm not going to let the ArbCom forget about these ancient sanctions that it continues to uphold.

Posted by: Nerd

Heh.

Posted by: RMHED

You certainly don't lack appeal, but do the jury find you appealing?

Posted by: Moulton

I find the whole process appalling.

Posted by: everyking

Newyorkbrad http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&diff=next&oldid=303783797 that he is "not inclined to lift this sole remaining restriction, for reasons that I do not believe it would be in anyone's interest (including Everyking's) to go into again on-wiki". So this is all top-secret business, huh? Well, I can't speak for Phil, but I certainly have nothing to hide. I'm not even sure what Brad is talking about, but probably he means that Phil has been screeching about something behind the scenes.

Posted by: Newyorkbrad

No, that's not what I mean. When I said that I don't believe it's in anyone's interest, including yours, to rake something up, that's what I meant.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

Why don't you take him back and and all of you just shut the fuck up? This has nothing to do with criticizing Wikipedia.

Posted by: Moulton

This case is yet one more monument to the utter lack of any functional conflict resolution process on Wikipedia.

Then again, the lack of functional conflict resolution is not limited to WikiCulture.

Anyone wanna take bets on whether Henry Louis Gates and the Cambridge Police will kiss and make up?

Posted by: everyking

All my knowledge of the situation leads me to believe that I could only benefit from full disclosure. So apparently there's something going on that I don't know about? Your words of caution notwithstanding, I'd really like to hear about that.


Sounds like you may be growing weary of your role as a moderator here on WR. But alas, I doubt they will ever take me back, at least not until the day Phil leaves Wikipedia and forfeits his veto power on the issue.

Posted by: One

No. There's been no lobbying. I don't even think your enemies are aware of your new request. You might even find hints in the pages of this thread (a thread I would never have considered resurrecting if I were you and if I actually cared about 'Everyking's reputation). I would take his advice, but if you insist, it's pretty clear what you have to do. It's been clear since February. To review:

Posted by: everyking

Since you obviously know all about it, why don't you share?