ArbCom votes to uphold EK "restraining order" Options

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Cedric]

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

[Moulton]

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

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

[Cedric]

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

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

[SirFozzie]

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

Sheesh.

[Random832]

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

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

This post has been edited by Random832:

[SirFozzie]

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

[everyking]

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

Sheesh.

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

[SirFozzie]

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

[dtobias]

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

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

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[everyking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Random832]

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

[Moulton]

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

Wikipedia mirrors the world.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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

[Cedric]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somey and HK close in on their latest victim

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

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

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

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

[Eva Destruction]

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

Here

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction:

[Peter Damian]

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

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

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

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

[edit] I just found this.

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Random832]

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.

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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

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.

[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.

[Pumpkin Muffins]

On January 1, brimming with hopes for the new ArbCom, I filed an appeal at RfAr requesting an end to the sanctions I've been under since 2005. Those sanctions include a "restraining order" barring me from interacting with Phil Sandifer...

James, time is on your side, hang in there. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

[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.

[Daniel Brandt]

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

Here

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.

[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.

[Random832]

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

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 independent source quoting Brandt's post in that picture.

[Daniel Brandt]

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

And just to complete the record, the comic-book fanboy who saved the screenshot on his elsewhere.org blog is one Joshua Larios, aka RJL20, hades, Empath, etc. Here he is on LinkedIn. 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.

[dtobias]

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

And just to complete the record, the comic-book fanboy who saved the screenshot on his elsewhere.org blog is one Joshua Larios, aka RJL20, hades, Empath, etc. Here he is on LinkedIn. 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.

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

[SirFozzie]

Just so everyone is on the same page, this is alleged to have been the original contents of one of EK's posts to the original thread.

And just to complete the record, the comic-book fanboy who saved the screenshot on his elsewhere.org blog is one Joshua Larios, aka RJL20, hades, Empath, etc. Here he is on LinkedIn. 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.

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

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

[everyking]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Cla68]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Somey]

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.

Ridiculous.

Here's the diff, by the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...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.

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.

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.

[Piperdown]

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

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

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...

[maggot3]

"Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy.

That's great. Thanks to Hushthis for finding that. "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.

I kind of wonder what happened here

[HappyWanderer]

"Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy.

That's great. Thanks to Hushthis for finding that. "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.

I kind of wonder what happened here

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.

This post has been edited by HappyWanderer:

[Somey]

I kind of wonder what happened here

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

I think that this so very illustrative of ArbCom's inability to distinguish between evidence and the kind of non-sense that the slapped together nature of ArbCom "processes" 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.

[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.

[dtobias]

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...

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

[Cla68]

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.

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.

[everyking]

Right now, it appears that Phil is involved in some dispute on 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?

[Milton Roe]

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

[Cool Hand Luke is recused.]

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

[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....

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

Yep.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Somey]

One is the squirreliest member that we ever knew...

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

[One]

One is the squirreliest member that we ever knew...

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

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.

© Three Dog Night and BarRoom Dork Associates

Good song, nice in-joke.

[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.

[Lar]

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

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/wikip...he-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...cles/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...

[EricBarbour]

(I found this posting http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows...cles/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...

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?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[Casliber]

Right now, it appears that Phil is involved in some dispute on 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?

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

[Crestatus]

I did support you in the last RfA in September, though I have no clue when to suggest running again
cheers
Cas

I think March might be good. 6 months.

[everyking]

Right now, it appears that Phil is involved in some dispute on 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?

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

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.

I did support you in the last RfA in September, though I have no clue when to suggest running again
cheers
Cas

I think March might be good. 6 months.

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"...

[Somey]

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.

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.

[Crestatus]

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

[Cedric]

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...cles/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...

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:

There are huge numbers of editors there whose main reason for participating is the goal of becoming an administrator. To become an administrator, you need contributions. Contributions are edits in all forms: new content, corrections, and deletions. Most of the obvious topics already have articles, so it is hard to come up with something new to create. Furthermore, creating, researching, and sourcing new articles is a lot of work that also requires a certain amount of creativity and writing skill. Well, editors with visions of adminhood dancing in their heads are not too thrilled about that. They want to be admins now! They want the power to block and ban people! They want the power to lock pages! They want power they can lord over the millions of people who use Wikipedia! Sad, but true.

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!

[everyking]

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

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/wikip...he-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...cles/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...

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 Pierre-André 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!

[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.

[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.

[everyking]

Posted my request for clarification.

[Somey]

Posted my request for clarification.

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 "ridiculous" to describe the situation a little earlier in the thread, though.

[Lar]

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

Well done...

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".

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

[everyking]

Posted my request for clarification.

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 "ridiculous" to describe the situation a little earlier in the thread, though.

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.

[Somey]

...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.

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." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[Milton Roe]

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

And should. They deserve it.

(I found this posting http://www.brighthub.com/computing/windows...cles/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.)

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: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/banned.gif)

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

You have only your own system to blame for it. Well done, indeed. Hmmm: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/idea.gif) Why don't you do something to fix it?

What follows is a very detailed recounting of what happened to Threshold's article. Sadly, this story is neither unique nor rare.

1) In September of 2008 Threshold RPG's entry came under attack. An editor bucking for admin powers (we will call him WA for "Wannabe Admin") and an administrator friend of his (we will call him AB for "Admin Buddy") discovered the vulnerable Threshold article and started poking it for signs of life. Minor edits and criticisms of the article were met with no response from long term editors of the article. Seeing their chance for an easy deletion and suspecting little resistance, they gutted the article and removed more than half the relevant content.

Eventually, a few original editors (OEs) showed up. The OEs were unhappy. They accepted some of the reasons given for the removals, like the a need for more citations, and got to work finding them. As the OEs found citations and references, they would add them to the article along with the old content that depended on them. Strangely, when the OEs did this, they would get banned for "reverting" or "edit warring." Some were labeled "sockpuppets" (alternate accounts) and were banned for that instead. If any of the OEs got annoyed by this, or accused WA or AB of vandalizing the article, they would get banned by AA for "failure to assume good faith."

Banning in this manner is completely forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, when an administrator works on an article as an editor (making edits, changes, etc.), he is supposed to refrain completely from using admin powers when dealing with other editors. They are supposed to seek a third party. Surprise surprise, that never happened.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fool.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) My heart bleeds for WP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

And yes, the net is getting savvy to the dirty tricks which are routine on WP. Again, see my heart bleed about this. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/winky.gif)

Milt

[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?

[Somey]

...It's a curious thing, because Coren actually voted to support my RfA a few months ago. Why the change of heart?...

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.)

[Milton Roe]

...It's a curious thing, because Coren actually voted to support my RfA a few months ago. Why the change of heart?...

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.)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Unless I have the thing backwards, too.

[everyking]

Spotting an opportunity to put this thing to the test, I bravely registered an opinion at the Threshold AfD. 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.

[Lar]

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

And should. They deserve it.

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.

[Somey]

Spotting an opportunity to put this thing to the test, I bravely registered an opinion at the Threshold AfD.

Well, let's not get all "emo" about it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif) ...it's not like you were going to vote "delete," after all!

I was certainly amused by this opinion though, by Jayvdb (T-C-L-K-R-D) - apparently the important thing is to avoid situations where "eyebrows would be raised." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

If you regularly appear at communal discussions where Phil has commented already, or on topics that you know he has keen interest in, eyebrows would be raised. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines#Motion_re_Abtract added a bit of clarity to what would be viewed as editing interaction: editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that [party 1] has recently edited but [party 2] has not previously edited.

That section, in turn, states:

Abtract (T-C-L-K-R-D) is directed not to interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Alastair Haines (T-C-L-K-R-D) , on any page in Wikipedia, or to harass Alastair Haines such as by editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that Alastair Haines has recently edited but Abtract has not previously edited.

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

And of course, Sandifer avoids the basic issue again, dismissing these concerns as "absurd hypotheticals." 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.

[everyking]

Some good news 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.

[Coren]

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?

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

[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?

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

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.

[everyking]

In a remarkable turn of events, Phil has actually been working on an article today: "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.

[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.

[Cla68]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[everyking]

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.

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.

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.

[Cla68]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Somey]

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

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?

[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?

[Somey]

...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?

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:

Man, what is that? It looks like shit!

Hmm, what does it smell like?

Yeah, it smells like shit... did you touch it?

Yeah, it feels like shit too! All mushy and disgusting! Ehh, you'd better taste it to make sure...

Yecch, it tastes like shit, too! Man, that is definitely shit!

Damn, it's a good thing we didn't step in it...

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

[everyking]

...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?

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.

[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 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.

[Cla68]

...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?

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.

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.

[One]

I agree with what Cla68 says above.

[everyking]

...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?

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.

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.

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.

[Moulton]

"ArbCom-sanctioned editor" is a very, very bad thing to have branded onto your hide.

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 anankastic control freaks who are enamored of the anachronistic Rules and Sanctions Regime.

[Kelly Martin]

"ArbCom-sanctioned editor" is a very, very bad thing to have branded onto your hide.

Never seemed to have much effect on Jayjg.

[everyking]

"ArbCom-sanctioned editor" is a very, very bad thing to have branded onto your hide.

Never seemed to have much effect on Jayjg.

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

[Doc glasgow]

"ArbCom-sanctioned editor" is a very, very bad thing to have branded onto your hide.

Never seemed to have much effect on Jayjg.

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

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.

[everyking]

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.

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

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

[Somey]

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

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.

[everyking]

I've asked the ArbCom 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.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Doc glasgow]

I've asked the ArbCom 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.

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.

[everyking]

I've asked the ArbCom 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.

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.

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?

[C H]

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.

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.

[Doc glasgow]

I've asked the ArbCom 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.

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.

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?

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.

[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 only following orders. 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.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[everyking]

Maybe someone can help me. I'm looking for someone who can distill the various "clarifications" 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.

[Moulton]

Maybe someone can help me. I'm looking for someone who can distill the various "clarifications" 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.

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 Civil Disobedience.

If you are unfamiliar with the Theory and Practice of Civil Disobedience, I have a colleague (Barsoom Tork) who will be glad to tutor you in the finer points of the subject.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Lar]

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.

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.

[Random832]

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

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

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.

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)

This post has been edited by Random832:

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

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.

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)

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.

[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 Spammish Inquisition.

[Kelly Martin]

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)

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.

[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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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 Spammish Inquisition.

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

[InkBlot]

Maybe someone can help me. I'm looking for someone who can distill the various "clarifications" 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.

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

A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example:

• If Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine;
• If Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine;
• If Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine.

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.

[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

[Moulton]

Can you believe this?!?

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 Spammish Inquisition.

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

Is that an example of a Vexatious Opinionant ?

See, there you go again with those vexatious opinions formerly known as haphazard theories of mind.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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).

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[Random832]

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.

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.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

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.

[everyking]

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.

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.

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?).

Maybe someone can help me. I'm looking for someone who can distill the various "clarifications" 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.

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

A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example:

• If Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine;
• If Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine;
• If Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine.

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.

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?

[One]

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?

His baby account did. See here, 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.

[everyking]

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?

His baby account did. See here, 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.

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

[One]

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?

His baby account did. See here, 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.

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

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*

[InkBlot]

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.

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.

[Coren]

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.

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.

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

-- Coren

[tarantino]

Now, will you please just go back to editing and drop the matter? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

-- Coren

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

This post has been edited by tarantino:

[EricBarbour]

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

Thanks a lot, smartass.

How is the review board going? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

And how's the fringe-science bit 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.

[everyking]

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.

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.

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? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

-- Coren

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?

[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?

[Milton Roe]

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?

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Lar]

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?

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.)

[everyking]

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?

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.)

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.

[Lar]

Yes, Lar, but I am exceptionally clueless, you see...arguably the most clueless of them all.

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.

[everyking]

Yes, Lar, but I am exceptionally clueless, you see...arguably the most clueless of them all.

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.

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

[Lar]

Yes, Lar, but I am exceptionally clueless, you see...arguably the most clueless of them all.

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.

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

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.

[One]

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.

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

[everyking]

Yes, Lar, but I am exceptionally clueless, you see...arguably the most clueless of them all.

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.

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

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... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

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.

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?

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

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

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

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"?

[Jon Awbrey]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

IANAD, but you really oughta see one about that.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

Tagged for Web Searches under • Bad Case Of Clap •

[EricBarbour]

Tagged for Web Searches under • Bad Case Of Clap •

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

[Casliber]

Gosh, this thread got very long and I somehow missed it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

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

[Bottled_Spider]

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.

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?

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 Pointillist. In my world, that's even worse than being called a ..... a bastard. I'd get him for that.

[Somey]

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

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.

[Doc glasgow]

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

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.

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Time to change the name of this forum.

"Wikipedia Review" is no longer sufficiently descriptive or accurate.

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.

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.

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[gomi]

Is it possible to create a special Everyking forum here.

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

[everyking]

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

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.

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.

[Lar]

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.

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

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 (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[everyking]

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.

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.

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

[Doc glasgow]

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.

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

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.

[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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

[everyking]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

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.)

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[Doc glasgow]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

[everyking]

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

[InkBlot]

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

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?

[Jon Awbrey]

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

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?

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

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

[No one of consequence]

Unfortunately, it seems Wikipedia abhors a vacuum.

So does Wikipedia Review, apparently.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

Old news, 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.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[everyking]

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

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?

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

[One]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

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.)

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

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.)

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

[One]

Well, I was wrong.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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?

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

...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?

[Mike H]

If this is locked, I will just need to start other threads to deal with future developments.

Oh, shit, you promise???? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)

Can you just let. it. go. please?

[everyking]

Well, I was wrong.

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.

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?

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

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?

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

...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?

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?

[Mike H]

Will the ArbCom please remove the shackles it has placed on me so that I can do so?

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.

[One]

Will the ArbCom please remove the shackles it has placed on me so that I can do so?

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.

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

Everyking, move on.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

Will the ArbCom please remove the shackles it has placed on me so that I can do so?

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.

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.

[Mike H]

So you're moving on...never?

[One]

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.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

ArbCom did you a favor.

Well at least something funny came from all of this.

[No one of consequence]

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 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.

[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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

[Kato]

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?

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?

[No one of consequence]

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?

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?

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.

[everyking]

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

[No one of consequence]

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?

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.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[everyking]

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?

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.

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?

[No one of consequence]

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?

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.

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?

There's an Arbcom on Wikipedia Review? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

(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.)

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[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).

[Alison]

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.

"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.

[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).

[Wikileaker]

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).

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

[No one of consequence]

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

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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).

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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/oldtimer.gif) retro-gnomes (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/cthulhu.gif) 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 — (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif) over the long haul (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif) — without getting yourself squarely on the side of Reality, then you are sadly, not wisely mistaken.

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[One]

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

This response is baffling. You are playing a game--don't you see that? Tell me, Everyking, how did this post 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:

...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.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

I have to go on, Moulton

Ah, go on Jon.

But first, please check your libretto.

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

[Jon Awbrey]

I have to go on, Moulton

Ah, go on Jon.

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

Jon (IMG:http://wikipediareview.com/stimg9x0b4fsr2/1/folder_post_icons/icon9.gif)

[Somey]

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.

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.

[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.

Chains - Beatles

[Milton Roe]

Yeah, it's crap on EK day here at WR, I guess.

And we need a slogan to stop it.

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Kingfish.jpg)
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.

[Floydsvoid]

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

18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

18:2 Saying, There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man:

18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

18:4 And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man;

18:5 Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.

Anyone weary yet? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Somey]

18:3 And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary.

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.

[Floydsvoid]

This is the key difference, y'see - the widow came unto him, meaning that she showed up in person.

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.

[Moulton]

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

[everyking]

"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.

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.

This response is baffling. You are playing a game--don't you see that? Tell me, Everyking, how did this post 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:

...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.

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...

This post has been edited by dogbiscuit:

[everyking]

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.

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.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[dogbiscuit]

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.

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.

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.

[Proabivouac]

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).

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

[Milton Roe]

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 - Beatles

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[Kato]

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.

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.

[EricBarbour]

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?

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

[Moulton]

Title: ArbCom Rock
Artist: Kato
Composer: Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller and Barsoom Tork Associates
Midi: Jailhouse Rock

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.

"At North American Bupkes, the beat goes on. And on. And on."

Jailhouse Rock - Elvis Presley

[GlassBeadGame]

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?

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

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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?

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

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.

They don't call 'em SCREWS fer nuttin!

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

[dtobias]

Wikipedia editors are all prisoners.

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

----------------
Now playing: Jim Croce - I'll Have to Say I Love You In A Song
via FoxyTunes

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia editors are all prisoners.

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

Now playing : Jim Croce : I'll Have to Say I Love You In A Song via FoxyTunes

Wrong Song, Dan —

Now playing : Eagles : Hotel Kalifornia via FoxyTunes

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[One]

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.

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.

[Moulton]

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.

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

Disjunction Dysfunction and the Error Function

See also:

The First Book of System Design

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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.

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

[One]

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

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[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.

[everyking]

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.

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

[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.

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

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

Tagged for Web Searches under • Transference Trap • †

† Always remember, Jonny Cache is not a Shrink ‡

‡ Except sometimes when it's really cold.

[everyking]

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

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.

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?

[Moulton]

One of the reasons that "principled" individuals are irrational is because nobody actually cares.

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

Town Without Pity - Gene Pitney

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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.

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.

[everyking]

One of the reasons that "principled" individuals are irrational is because nobody actually cares.

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

Town Without Pity - Gene Pitney

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.

[Bottled_Spider]

Wikipedia editors are all prisoners.

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

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".

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.

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......

[One]

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?

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, Coren's, dtobias', 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.

This post has been edited by One:

[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?

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, 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.

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?

[Milton Roe]

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.

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

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.

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.

[EricBarbour]

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.
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.
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.
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.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

[Milton Roe]

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."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[One]

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."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) 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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

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 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.

This post has been edited by One:

[dogbiscuit]

...snip on the worthiness of principles...

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.")

[One]

Normally I ask people to identify their Wikipedia accounts on here, and I've taken some flak for that, but in this case, if Wikileaker is in a position to have access to those archives, I don't think he or she should be placed under any pressure to disclose his wiki-identity.

Wikileaker shouldn't tease us. If he or she has mailing list archives up to January 16, then he or she should post the discussion relevant to the ArbCom's decision to retain the "restraining order" against me in early January. The reasons for that decision are quite mysterious, and Wikileaker would do us a great service if he or she would enable us to understand why the ArbCom continues to so vigorously support one side in an argument that occurred in 2005.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif))

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.)

[Moulton]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Thick ya verra much.

I think life is too short to fight for Pyrrhic victories.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

You are right about setting precedents. How else would we get Pierson v. Post? I don't admire the participants in that case though.

Pierson v Post 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.

[One]

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

Sorry. I agree with you in this subject area.

[Jon Awbrey]

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

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

[Floydsvoid]

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

Now that's heavy

[One]

I've asked the ArbCom 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.

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.

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):

The Arbitration Committee has granted an appeal of the ban on Rootology (talk · contribs). Rootology is unbanned subject to two conditions, namely:

* a topic ban with respect to September 11, 2001 attacks and related articles, and Encyclopedia Dramatica and related articles; and
* a ban on interacting with MONGO (talk · contribs).

For the Arbitration Committee, bainer (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe Rootology is still under these restrictions, yet he is almost universally acknowledged to be an editor in good standing, confirmed by RFA/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.

This post has been edited by One:

[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.

[everyking]

The best way to dislodge these misperception is to move forward. It's not an issue unless you continue making it one.

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.

[Proabivouac]

I worry that a lot of this discussion is doing more harm to any future runs at RfA than any sanctions are.

Spoken like a true third-party observer.

[EricBarbour]

I worry that a lot of this discussion is doing more harm to any future runs at RfA than any sanctions are.

Spoken like a true third-party observer.

And how is that ForesticPig business doing?........... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[One]

The best way to dislodge these misperception is to move forward. It's not an issue unless you continue making it one.

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.

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

Wrong Song, Moulton …

Chain Of Fools : Don Covay, Aretha Franklin

Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools
Five long years I thought you were my man
But I found out I'm just a link in your chain
You got me where you want me
I ain't nothing but your fool
You treated me mean oh you treated me cruel
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools

Every chain has got a weak link
I might be weak child, but I'll give you strength
You told me to leave you alone
My father said come on home
My doctor said take it easy
Whole bunch of lovin is much too strong
I'm added to your chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain, chain,
Chain, chain of fools

One of these mornings the chain is gonna break
But up until then, yeah, I'm gonna take all I can take
Chain, chain, chain, chain, chain, chain
Chain, chain, chain, chain of fools

Ja Ja (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif) Follow The Bouncing Ball

[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 Peter Senge, whose name we have mentioned 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 modern concepts of ethical best practices for an exemplary learning organization.

[Newyorkbrad]

The best way to dislodge these misperception is to move forward. It's not an issue unless you continue making it one.

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.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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

[Kelly Martin]

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.

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

[No one of consequence]

I do not believe that your interests are best served by further publicizing the matter, but that is up to you.

That depends on what his interests actually are.

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

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[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.

[One]

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

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[everyking]

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

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.

[Moulton]

A fish rots from the head down.

All candidates should agree to conduct their deliberations in public if elected and give members of the community reasonable explanations in public.

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.

[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 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wub.gif) Wetters like ordinary people.

Whaddaya Say !?

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sleep.gif)

[Somey]

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

If only we could... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

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

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.

[everyking]

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

If only we could... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

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.

[Somey]

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.

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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

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. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[One]

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

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.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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.

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.

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.

[One]

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.

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.

[EricBarbour]

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.

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 "had to" be banned, or
a user like Everyking who "is trouble just by existing", they end up sounding like
Stalinist-era Politburo members?.........just wondering.)

[Random832]

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.

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

[Kurt M. Weber]

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

[maggot3]

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.

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

[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.

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

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

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

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.

Friends like that...

[Newyorkbrad]

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.

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

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.

Friends like that...

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.

[One]

Friends like that...

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[GlassBeadGame]

Friends like that...

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.

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.

[Random832]

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.

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

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.

...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.)

[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.

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

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.

...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.)

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[Random832]

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

[everyking]

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

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.

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.

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.

[One]

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

[No one of consequence]

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.

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

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".

Just now I was working on the article Pierre-André 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!

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.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Jon Awbrey]

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

Just Asking …

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/thumbsdown.gif)

[No one of consequence]

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

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

[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.

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".

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.

Just now I was working on the article Pierre-André 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!

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.

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]

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

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.

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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

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.

[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.

[Wikileaker]

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.

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.

[Kato]

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.

Theory of Mind 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.)

[Kelly Martin]

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.)

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.

[Newyorkbrad]

You are right about setting precedents. How else would we get Pierson v. Post? I don't admire the participants in that case though.

Pierson v Post 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.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

You are right about setting precedents. How else would we get Pierson v. Post? I don't admire the participants in that case though.

Pierson v Post 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.

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.

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.

[everyking]

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.

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.

[Lar]

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.

Thanks... No worries, Everyking.

[everyking]

More than six months later, I've appealed again. 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.

[Nerd]

More than six months later, I've appealed again. 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.

Heh.

[RMHED]

More than six months later, I've appealed again. 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.

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

[Moulton]

I find the whole process appalling.

[everyking]

Newyorkbrad says 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.

[Newyorkbrad]

Newyorkbrad says 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.

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.

[GlassBeadGame]

Newyorkbrad says 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.

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.

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.

[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?

[everyking]

Newyorkbrad says 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.

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.

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.

Newyorkbrad says 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.

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.

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.

Sounds like you may be growing weary of your role as a moderator here on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) 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.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[One]

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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.

This post has been edited by One:

[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.

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 considering resurrecting if I were you and if I actually cared about 'Everyking's reputation).

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

[One]

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

Are you really so incapable of following plain instructions? Do you want to know why NYB would not support removing the one solitary restriction against you? I don't feel qualified to speak for NYB.

You'll have to lean forward in your chair slightly so that you can edit the url bar in your browser: Ask him on Wikipedia as has been suggested a half dozen times.

[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.

Sounds like you may be growing weary of your role as a moderator here on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) 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.

...and yet another website in which you believe you have influence that you do not have.

[everyking]

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

Are you really so incapable of following plain instructions? Do you want to know why NYB would not support removing the one solitary restriction against you? I don't feel qualified to speak for NYB.

You'll have to lean forward in your chair slightly so that you can edit the url bar in your browser: Ask him on Wikipedia as has been suggested a half dozen times.

I think it's petty to demand that I go to a different website to ask a question, especially considering that most of the discussion is taking place here, so I'm not going to do that. Why should the guy who's dealing with these ridiculous restrictions have to jump through hoops to get a simple explanation of why the people in power want the restrictions maintained?

[GlassBeadGame]

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

Are you really so incapable of following plain instructions? Do you want to know why NYB would not support removing the one solitary restriction against you? I don't feel qualified to speak for NYB.

You'll have to lean forward in your chair slightly so that you can edit the url bar in your browser: Ask him on Wikipedia as has been suggested a half dozen times.

I think it's petty to demand that I go to a different website to ask a question, especially considering that most of the discussion is taking place here, so I'm not going to do that. Why should the guy who's dealing with these ridiculous restrictions have to jump through hoops to get a simple explanation of why the people in power want the restrictions maintained?

Because nobody cares about your woes and dramas? I won't stop you from whining here. I just believe it is all meaningless and will say so.

[everyking]

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.

Sounds like you may be growing weary of your role as a moderator here on WR. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) 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.

...and yet another website in which you believe you have influence that you do not have.

Oh, just one of many! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Actually, I don't imagine I have any more influence here than I have over the neighbor's cats.

[One]

You are restricted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia business is conducted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia business is relevant to Wikipedia. It's not here.

If you find this unreasonable, that's tough because you're wrong.

You could ask there, or complain about it more. Choice is yours, as it always has been.

[GlassBeadGame]

You are restricted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia business is conducted on Wikipedia. Wikipedia business is relevant to Wikipedia. It's not here.

If you find this unreasonable, that's tough because you're wrong.

You could ask there, or complain about it more. Choice is yours, as it always has been.

Yeah. You love Wikipedia. They love Wikipedia. Get a room...on Wikipedia.

[Kelly Martin]

You could ask there, or complain about it more. Choice is yours, as it always has been.

See, I think this is silly. If you're willing to talk about it in public, it shouldn't matter whether you do it here or there. This business of whining about choice of forum is just mutual drama whoring by all of you, maybe combined by a little unwillingness on the part of the Wikilovers not to legitimize WR by having "real discussion" here. (That last comment is primarily directed at Newyorkbrad.)

"I won't answer your question because you asked it in the wrong place" is the last refuge of the incompetent bureaucrat. Perhaps you should try being a person for a change.

[GlassBeadGame]

You could ask there, or complain about it more. Choice is yours, as it always has been.

See, I think this is silly. If you're willing to talk about it in public, it shouldn't matter whether you do it here or there. This business of whining about choice of forum is just mutual drama whoring by all of you, maybe combined by a little unwillingness on the part of the Wikilovers not to legitimize WR by having "real discussion" here. (That last comment is primarily directed at Newyorkbrad.)

"I won't answer your question because you asked it in the wrong place" is the last refuge of the incompetent bureaucrat. Perhaps you should try being a person for a change.

It is not a "real discussion" it is more dishonest mutual manipulation over Wikipedian wonkery. If that makes WR legitimate you can keep it, thank you.

[Kelly Martin]

It is not a "real discussion" it is more dishonest mutual manipulation over Wikipedian wonkery. If that makes WR legitimate you can keep it, thank you.

Well, they are doing us the service of demonstrating how dysfunctional their community guidance is by playing this stupid game in front of all of us to see. We should thank them for that. Although I admit that it gets old.

[Moulton]

The lack of a functional conflict resolution process is not limited to Wikipedia.

Conflict resolution is anathema to burbling drama.

[everyking]

I can only marvel at the ability of some arbitrators to believe that I have harassed Phil Sandifer and that I should be under a perpetual restriction as a result, while simultaneously believing that I am "a user in good standing" who is suited to the role of adminship (note the various arbitrators who supported me in my last RfA). To vote for a good-for-nothing scoundrel like me, these arbitrators must have appallingly low standards for adminship! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

I can only marvel at the ability of some arbitrators to believe that I have harassed Phil Sandifer and that I should be under a perpetual restriction as a result, while simultaneously believing that I am "a user in good standing" who is suited to the role of adminship (note the various arbitrators who supported me in my last RfA). To vote for a good-for-nothing scoundrel like me, these arbitrators must have appallingly low standards for adminship! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I don't see a problem with you taking your complaints here; the justification seems reasonable - that you aren't getting the answers you've asked for on Wikipedia.

For what it's worth, my impression is that you've faced this conflict head on with honesty, in public and without the sleazy manipulation gene so prevalent in admins like SlimVirgin.

[everyking]

Coren (didn't he resign or something?) had a comment that echoed a lot of what I've heard from people on this forum: "In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals." My question is: if this is ancient history, if I'm the only person who still cares, if the issue is entirely moot, then why does the ArbCom uphold the restriction every time? You can't have it both ways; you can't rationally argue that this sanction is a pointless relic while also maintaining that it should remain in place.

[Milton Roe]

Coren (didn't he resign or something?) had a comment that echoed a lot of what I've heard from people on this forum: "In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals." My question is: if this is ancient history, if I'm the only person who still cares, if the issue is entirely moot, then why does the ArbCom uphold the restriction every time? You can't have it both ways; you can't rationally argue that this sanction is a pointless relic while also maintaining that it should remain in place.

Why? Why, you ask? Is it not obvious WHY? Because you care. Because it twists your knobs, Everyking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And THEY KNOW DRAHMA. Even on Arbcom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[everyking]

Why? Why, you ask? Is it not obvious WHY? Because yoiu care. Because it twists your knobs, Everyking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

And THEY KNOW DRAHMA. Even on Arbcom. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

While I used to hope that someday the ArbCom could change and play a beneficial role, I've now come to believe that it should simply be disbanded--it seems to be so hopelessly infected with bad thinking, elitism, and backroom dealing that every new person who joins it, no matter how rational and fair they might appear at the outset, quickly mutates into a clone of Raul654 or Jpgordon (or Kelly Martin (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)). For example, I saw Carcharoth as one of the best candidates in the last election, having long observed his ability to approach administrative issues in a calm and reasonable way. But now he has mutated: he's calling for my restrictions to be toughened as a result of my appeal, so that in the future I'd only be allowed to appeal once per year.

Coren has amended his earlier statement: "No, I meant that this would be an old and forgotten issue if it wasn't being raised at regular intervals." My biggest failing as a Wikipedian is that when I am beat, I scream and protest instead of accepting that I had it coming.

"Well, we would have let you go, but since you've asked to be released, you can forget about it..."

Phil Sandifer, that most invaluable of Wikipedians whose sensitive soul must be protected from criticism at all costs, hasn't had any comment so far in this round. He's been busy with talk page blather about Doctor Who articles, apparently. I was hoping he might intervene with another outrageous allegation--recall that last time he alleged that I was the puppet-master orchestrating the actions of the police who work at his campus back in 2006. Maybe I've contacted them this time to tell them that he's got an outdated parking permit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[everyking]

Despite my repeated requests, Brad is still not explaining his opposition to my appeal. Not here, not there, not anywhere. That means there's still time for people to guess at what he might be alluding to! All we know so far is that it's a terrible, terrible thing, the revelation of which can only do tremendous damage to my reputation. Which is funny, because I didn't realize I still had a reputation after being subjected to a wiki-restraining order for nearly four years.

"Yes, we know your sentence has expired, but we still can't let you go. Why not, you ask? Well, I'd rather not say...it could harm your reputation, and we wouldn't want that. Let's just say it's really really bad and leave it at that. Isn't it easier that way?" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[EricBarbour]

(IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/ohthedrama.gif) (IMG:http://i554.photobucket.com/albums/jj408/kamaze144/jerkitsmiley.gif)

[everyking]

Well, it looks like Brad just isn't willing to explain. I admire his willingness to protect me by refusing to tell me why he wants to keep me under sanctions. What a guy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) I think our friend CHL should give him a good talking to now, since he repeatedly said that Brad would be willing to explain his reasoning if I asked him on-wiki.

[everyking]

Former arbitrator Dominic (previously called Dmcdevit), who I'd have expected to throw me an anvil if I were drowning, had this comment:

I recall very well from my service on ArbCom in 2006 how Everyking's repeated appeals can be exasperating. To some extent though, it's ArbCom's own doing. I think that we have for some reason subjected Everyking to a treatment that other arbitration parties have not had to deal with: the lack of expirations. The idea of some kind of annual appeal allowance misses the point. The reason Everyking even would need to do that is because his restrictions go on indefinitely. My opinion is that rather than considering immediate repealing of restrictions every time Everyking asks, ArbCom should have long ago passed a motion to simply set an expiration date, be it a month or a year from now, on all restrictions currently in place for Everyking. It can still renew the restrictions if the problematic behavior occurs again, of course. It's the same basic treatment nearly everyone else gets.

I think the current arbitrators are capable of reasoning on this level too. Given their history, that may seem implausible, but bear in mind: these people get out of bed in the mornings, manage to put on their pants, and some of them may even drive. All I'm asking is that they apply the same level of rudimentary thought to this issue.

[One]

Former arbitrator Dominic (previously called Dmcdevit), who I'd have expected to throw me an anvil if I were drowning, had this comment:

...My opinion is that rather than considering immediate repealing of restrictions every time Everyking asks, ArbCom should have long ago passed a motion to simply set an expiration date, be it a month or a year from now, on all restrictions currently in place for Everyking. It can still renew the restrictions if the problematic behavior occurs again, of course. It's the same basic treatment nearly everyone else gets.

That's actually an interesting point. A handful of Arbs are very reluctant to impose any restriction that lasts longer than one year. Dig through some old cases and you can identify them. If considering the matter freshly, those arbitrators probably would have opposed anything longer than one year, and one would expect that someone would propose to do likewise with your restriction.

On the other hand, those arbitrators are a minority, and we've imposed plenty of indefinite restrictions this year; date delinking springs to mind. Therefore, Dominic's factual premise ("basic treatment nearly everyone else gets") is false.

[No one of consequence]

Here's my unsolicited opinion: Lift the restriction.

If he resumes commenting on Phil and it is in a manner that is inconsistent with good order and civility, drop the hammer on him. If he stays away, all to the good.

This approach has occasionally been tried with various editors who were banned and allowed to return, with varying degrees of success. What's the worst that can happen?

[One]

I can agree with you here. Hell, we even let Kohser and Guido have another shot. This is a much less risky proposition.

[Somey]

I can agree with you here. Hell, we even let Kohser and Guido have another shot. This is a much less risky proposition.

It isn't a question of risk, though, is it?

Greg and Guido both have considerable editorial talent, no question of that, but they're not committed Wikipedians - anything but, in fact. EK, on the other hand, is one of the most active and committed WP editors in the site's history, always editing with one account in spite of what must be enormous temptation not to, refusing to resort to petty political gamesmanship even at the cost of his own (now practically non-existent) popularity, and still following the so-called rules in defiance of even the most rudimentary real-world logic and common sense. In many ways, he's the ideal Wikipedian, except for this one major problem of his, that he apparently believes people should be treated fairly across the board. Oh well, nobody's perfect!

These restrictions are a matter of control, they have nothing to do with some ludicrously-imagined "risk" that he's going to somehow offend someone with an edit to the page on Ashlee Simpson.

Phil Sandifer, meanwhile, is a jerk. There's just no getting around that fact - he is a jerk, and probably a major narcissist to boot. Somebody's going to say something mean to him? Poor baby! What's amazing here isn't that EK is still on a bogus "restriction" to not "interact" with Sandifer; what's amazing is that more people aren't on that same restriction, because is Sandifer had his way, there would be an ever-growing list of such people.

[Kelly Martin]

Phil Sandifer, meanwhile, is a jerk. There's just no getting around that fact - he is a jerk, and probably a major narcissist to boot. Somebody's going to say something mean to him? Poor baby! What's amazing here isn't that EK is still on a bogus "restriction" to not "interact" with Sandifer; what's amazing is that more people aren't on that same restriction, because is Sandifer had his way, there would be an ever-growing list of such people.

I think the only reason there isn't a larger list of such people is that Sandifer moved on to some other playground. He simply hasn't been nearly as active in Wikipedia as he used to be.

The main reason that EK's sanctions continue is that it's fun to kick people when they're down. Mature people learn that doing this is unkind, and furthermore creates the real risk that people will kick you when you're down later on, but Wikipedia's leadership is not known for its maturity.

[Cla68]

Phil Sandifer, meanwhile, is a jerk. There's just no getting around that fact - he is a jerk, and probably a major narcissist to boot. Somebody's going to say something mean to him? Poor baby! What's amazing here isn't that EK is still on a bogus "restriction" to not "interact" with Sandifer; what's amazing is that more people aren't on that same restriction, because is Sandifer had his way, there would be an ever-growing list of such people.

I think the only reason there isn't a larger list of such people is that Sandifer moved on to some other playground. He simply hasn't been nearly as active in Wikipedia as he used to be.

Like I asked Everyking before, is Phil the kind of person you would pay the slightest attention to in real life, off of Wikipedia, aside from reading in the campus newspaper about the author of a homicidal, online rant being investigated by the school's security department? I understand, however, that that is no longer the issue here, which is why the ArbCom won't simply rescind all sanctions and wipe the record clean.

[Moulton]

ArbCom lacks the charter and political power base upon which to evolve Wikipedia into a well-governed community. Moreover, the makeup of the ArbCom over the years has included a number of people with checkered histories and questionable ethics, further eroding its standing as a trustworthy, responsible, and respected governing body.

What Wikipedia needs is a Constitutional Convention to craft a functional governance model for itself.

However, most observers doubt that such a process can be carried out at this late stage of the game. The most likely scenario is that Wikipedia will limp along with flawed and erratic governance, and a growing horde of dismayed, disgruntled, and disappointed refugees from a project that has lamentably devolved into a noisome dramaturgical circus characterized by reverberating echoes of character assassination and reciprocal narcissistic wounding.

[Random832]

The problem is...

Wikipedia lacks the charter and political power base upon which to craft a functional governance model for itself.

[One]

These restrictions are a matter of control, they have nothing to do with some ludicrously-imagined "risk" that he's going to somehow offend someone with an edit to the page on Ashlee Simpson.

Er, in spite of Everyking's steadfast use of the word "restrictions," there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely. He can edit Ashlee Simpson to his heart's content.

[Cedric]

These restrictions are a matter of control, they have nothing to do with some ludicrously-imagined "risk" that he's going to somehow offend someone with an edit to the page on Ashlee Simpson.

Er, in spite of Everyking's steadfast use of the word "restrictions," there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely. He can edit Ashlee Simpson to his heart's content.

Really? Really and truly?? I always had the impression that there was a lingering resentment and distrust of EK amongst the cabalistas stemming directly from the Ashlee dramahz of years ago. What if he takes you at your word?

It also seems to me that the Sandifer "harassment" pretext wears thinner with each week and month that passes.

[No one of consequence]

Er, in spite of Everyking's steadfast use of the word "restrictions," there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely. He can edit Ashlee Simpson to his heart's content.

Really? Really and truly?? I always had the impression that there was a lingering resentment and distrust of EK amongst the cabalistas stemming directly from the Ashlee dramahz of years ago. What if he takes you at your word?

It also seems to me that the Sandifer "harassment" pretext wears thinner with each week and month that passes.

I don't follow. Last year Arbcom formally lifted all restrictions except the instruction not to interact or comment on Phil. I don't know why they kept that one, except perhaps suspicion aroused by EK's repeated demands to have it lifted. There are 9 appeals on file at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking_3, not including the current appeal. Frankly, I am also made suspicious by his constant drive to have the remaining restriction lifted. However, I would be willing to give him the chance that it really is a matter of principle.

[thekohser]

Greg and Guido both have considerable editorial talent...

Whew! You can say THAT again!

[Kato]

I think the only reason there isn't a larger list of such people is that Sandifer moved on to some other playground. He simply hasn't been nearly as active in Wikipedia as he used to be.

When I was looking through the archives recently, I discovered that during the era of his spat with Everyking, Sandifer (Snowspinner) had decided to become a "self-appointed prosecutor" of other editors bringing forth numerous Arbcom cases. Then, Sandifer formed a "District Attorney's Office" with other loons and declared himself "dictator". Literally.

A couple of years later, Sandifer was booming "we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people" and announcing "I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world".

All restrictions on Everyking should be removed asap. Sandifer was clearly out of his mind back then, and Arbcom should show that Wikipedia has matured out of its embarrassing past.

Having a prior dispute with Sandifer at that time is like saying you once disagreed with the methods of Colonel Kurtz.

[One]

Really? Really and truly?? I always had the impression that there was a lingering resentment and distrust of EK amongst the cabalistas stemming directly from the Ashlee dramahz of years ago. What if he takes you at your word?

Dunno. He has no formal restriction. What the cabal might think of it is outside of my knowledge.

You are right that EK is primarily remembered for Ashlee Simpson drama among those who were active in early 2005.

[Random832]

Frankly, I am also made suspicious by his constant drive to have the remaining restriction lifted.

How is that suspicious?

there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely.

Has it been amended to read ", interpreted sanely" while I wasn't looking? While I can certainly agree that the interpretation EK fears will be applied is not sane, there does not appear to be any restraint on any insane or malicious admin interpreting it however they choose.

[One]

Has it been amended to read ", interpreted sanely" while I wasn't looking? While I can certainly agree that the interpretation EK fears will be applied is not sane, there does not appear to be any restraint on any insane or malicious admin interpreting it however they choose.

He asked for a clarification on this matter, asking whether he could comment on AFDs opened by Sandifer, ect. The Arbs opined, and NYB's "reasonable interpretation" was one of the comments. Not that Everyking's questions engendered confidence. It's on this thread, in fact. Or here.

[No one of consequence]

Frankly, I am also made suspicious by his constant drive to have the remaining restriction lifted.

How is that suspicious?

there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely.

Has it been amended to read ", interpreted sanely" while I wasn't looking? While I can certainly agree that the interpretation EK fears will be applied is not sane, there does not appear to be any restraint on any insane or malicious admin interpreting it however they choose.

You've kind of made my point. If he has no intention of commenting to or about Phil, then it doesn't matter whether the restriction is interpreted sanely or not, because he will never trigger it. My suspicion is that he does want to comment on Phil, hence the 3 year lobbying effort.

On the other hand, it is not a particularly logical suspicion. If EK really has been carrying a smoldering grudge against PS for the last 4 years, it seems more likely that at some point he would have ripped into Phil on this site, or a blog somewhere, or made a sockpuppet to do it, and rather unlikely that EK has been withholding his pending attack for the last 4 years out of respect for Arbcom.

Hence, my thinking that the restriction should be lifted, because it can easily enough be reapplied if EK fails to act in a manner consistent with the usual understanding of editor behavior toward each other.

[Random832]

You've kind of made my point. If he has no intention of commenting to or about Phil, then it doesn't matter whether the restriction is interpreted sanely or not, because he will never trigger it. My suspicion is that he does want to comment on Phil, hence the 3 year lobbying effort.

And you won't mind having this publicly posted restraining order preventing you from coming within 100 yards of me, because you don't live anywhere near me anyway and wouldn't have any reason to.

When are you going to get that the existence of the sanction has consequences beyond the mere fact of not being allowed to talk to Phil?

[No one of consequence]

When are you going to get that the existence of the sanction has consequences beyond the mere fact of not being allowed to talk to Phil?

Which is why I suggested, despite my concern, that the restriction should be lifted and then see what happens.

[TungstenCarbide]

These restrictions are a matter of control, they have nothing to do with some ludicrously-imagined "risk" that he's going to somehow offend someone with an edit to the page on Ashlee Simpson.

Er, in spite of Everyking's steadfast use of the word "restrictions," there is one solitary restriction still on him: interaction with Sandifer, interpreted sanely. He can edit Ashlee Simpson to his heart's content.

Didn't some sitting or previous arbitrators derail Everyking's last RFA?
The longer this goes on the more it seem like a petty vendetta by current and previous arbitrators against Everyking.

It isn't a question of risk, though, is it?Greg and Guido both have considerable editorial talent, no question of that, but they're not committed Wikipedians - anything but, in fact. EK, on the other hand, is one of the most active and committed WP editors in the site's history, always editing with one account in spite of what must be enormous temptation not to, refusing to resort to petty political gamesmanship even at the cost of his own (now practically non-existent) popularity, and still following the so-called rules in defiance of even the most rudimentary real-world logic and common sense. In many ways, he's the ideal Wikipedian, except for this one major problem of his, that he apparently believes people should be treated fairly across the board. Oh well, nobody's perfect!

These restrictions are a matter of control, they have nothing to do with some ludicrously-imagined "risk" that he's going to somehow offend someone with an edit to the page on Ashlee Simpson.

Phil Sandifer, meanwhile, is a jerk. There's just no getting around that fact - he is a jerk, and probably a major narcissist to boot. Somebody's going to say something mean to him? Poor baby! What's amazing here isn't that EK is still on a bogus "restriction" to not "interact" with Sandifer; what's amazing is that more people aren't on that same restriction, because is Sandifer had his way, there would be an ever-growing list of such people.

Well said. It would be hard to find a more dedicated and well behaved editor than Everyking. Someone who spends the majority of his efforts editing articles instead of playing the game. Someone who airs his complaints in the open and gives the arbcom the chance to do the same.

Hell Everyking, all you have to do is send private suckup emails to the arbitors to show your subservience and you'll and admin again in no time. Remember, Slimvirgin is one of the most foul, manipulative and treacherous beasts on line and she's an admin, event after that Weiss thing and her super secret star chamber.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Didn't some sitting or previous arbitrators derail Everyking's last RFA?

The following current Arbs participated in Everyking's most recent RFA:

Casliber (support)
John Vandenberg (support)
Cool Hand Luke (support)
Wizardman (support)
FloNight (oppose)

The following former arbitrators took part in Everyking's last RFA:

Neutrality (support)
Rebecca (oppose)
YellowMonkey (oppose)
Raul654 (oppose)
Sam Korn (oppose)
jpgordon (oppose)

Draw what conclusions you will (and no, I'm not trying to lead you to any). The most interesting thing I saw in the RFA was Stifle, who has said that he views WR participation as being incompatible with WP adminship, supporting.

[Kelly Martin]

When I was looking through the archives recently, I discovered that during the era of his spat with Everyking, Sandifer (Snowspinner) had decided to become a "self-appointed prosecutor" of other editors bringing forth numerous Arbcom cases. Then, Sandifer formed a "District Attorney's Office" with other loons and declared himself "dictator". Literally.

I considered joining his venture (he started it around the time I joined Wikipedia), but after watching it for a bit realized that his approach was a bit too "gung ho" for my taste. (This should say something, coming from me.) At one point I recommended Sandifer for the ArbCom on the basis that actually putting him on it might curtail some of his more obnoxious qualities while taking advantage of his (actually pretty good) talent for detecting bullshit.

Sandifer would be an asset if well-managed. The problem is that Wikipedia has no way to manage him, and so he turns into a giant screaming liability. Wikipedia is full of people like that.

[Kelly Martin]

The longer this goes on the more it seem like a petty vendetta by current and previous arbitrators against Everyking.

Of course it is.

The problem is that Everyking's behavior in 2005 and 2006 seemed to us (I know, I was there) to be boundary testing. The ArbCom grew tired of trying to draft tailored remedies to prohibit him from being annoying, and the constant attempts to test the boundaries of his restrictions won him no friends at all. Mark Pellegrini, especially, disliked (and still dislikes) EK, but the initial proposal to desysop EK for his supposed offer to post deleted content on WR was made by Jayjg: "I think we would have a policy regarding administrators who support Wikipedia Review and similar fora; perhaps even removing their admin status. What do others think?" David Gerard was also a significant voice in the call to desysop.

I have no idea if Jayjg is still a significant voice in the Cabal, but we know that Gerard still is. I think the other major party keeping the flame burning is Mark Pellegrini, and I did find one thread started by him discussing EK specifically, but I can't arse myself to read it just now.

[everyking]

The longer this goes on the more it seem like a petty vendetta by current and previous arbitrators against Everyking.

Of course it is.

The problem is that Everyking's behavior in 2005 and 2006 seemed to us (I know, I was there) to be boundary testing. The ArbCom grew tired of trying to draft tailored remedies to prohibit him from being annoying, and the constant attempts to test the boundaries of his restrictions won him no friends at all. Mark Pellegrini, especially, disliked (and still dislikes) EK, but the initial proposal to desysop EK for his supposed offer to post deleted content on WR was made by Jayjg: "I think we would have a policy regarding administrators who support Wikipedia Review and similar fora; perhaps even removing their admin status. What do others think?" David Gerard was also a significant voice in the call to desysop.

I have no idea if Jayjg is still a significant voice in the Cabal, but we know that Gerard still is. I think the other major party keeping the flame burning is Mark Pellegrini, and I did find one thread started by him discussing EK specifically, but I can't arse myself to read it just now.

Based on my own knowledge, I would guess that you are right about Gerard and Raul being primarily responsible for my long treatment as some kind of wiki-terrorist. The quoted proposal is fascinating: it says nothing about the purported danger that I would reveal "private information", which was the official reason for the desysop. Instead it refers only to a concept of site loyalty.

[everyking]

Didn't some sitting or previous arbitrators derail Everyking's last RFA?

The following current Arbs participated in Everyking's most recent RFA:

Casliber (support)
John Vandenberg (support)
Cool Hand Luke (support)
Wizardman (support)
FloNight (oppose)

The following former arbitrators took part in Everyking's last RFA:

Neutrality (support)
Rebecca (oppose)
YellowMonkey (oppose)
Raul654 (oppose)
Sam Korn (oppose)
jpgordon (oppose)

Draw what conclusions you will (and no, I'm not trying to lead you to any). The most interesting thing I saw in the RFA was Stifle, who has said that he views WR participation as being incompatible with WP adminship, supporting.

Anyone who does not even think I can be trusted to edit freely and behave like a decent human being should certainly not support me for any position of responsibility: such an attitude is schizophrenic, in my opinion. It suggests they may be voting their conscience only when they believe there will be no political consequences for them, and I do not respect such people.

[everyking]

I think the only reason there isn't a larger list of such people is that Sandifer moved on to some other playground. He simply hasn't been nearly as active in Wikipedia as he used to be.

When I was looking through the archives recently, I discovered that during the era of his spat with Everyking, Sandifer (Snowspinner) had decided to become a "self-appointed prosecutor" of other editors bringing forth numerous Arbcom cases. Then, Sandifer formed a "District Attorney's Office" with other loons and declared himself "dictator". Literally.

A couple of years later, Sandifer was booming "we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people" and announcing "I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world".

All restrictions on Everyking should be removed asap. Sandifer was clearly out of his mind back then, and Arbcom should show that Wikipedia has matured out of its embarrassing past.

Having a prior dispute with Sandifer at that time is like saying you once disagreed with the methods of Colonel Kurtz.

Sadly, one of the worst effects of being under ArbCom restrictions is that history has been written to demonize you. Hardly anyone remembers all that madness Phil got up to in 2005, because the ArbCom has constructed a laughably warped version of history in which Phil is a lilywhite victim and I am a dangerous stalker. Even now, people will express concern that I have never recanted my heresy and accepted the faith--they may know nothing about the issues involved in the cases, but they assume automatically that the history books are accurate and that, if I object to the way they are written, it is evidence that I cannot be fully trusted.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[RMHED]

I think the only reason there isn't a larger list of such people is that Sandifer moved on to some other playground. He simply hasn't been nearly as active in Wikipedia as he used to be.

When I was looking through the archives recently, I discovered that during the era of his spat with Everyking, Sandifer (Snowspinner) had decided to become a "self-appointed prosecutor" of other editors bringing forth numerous Arbcom cases. Then, Sandifer formed a "District Attorney's Office" with other loons and declared himself "dictator". Literally.

A couple of years later, Sandifer was booming "we are the 800 lb gorilla in most conflicts with people" and announcing "I have no fucking clue why I am a powerful and trusted administrator on the ninth biggest website in the world".

All restrictions on Everyking should be removed asap. Sandifer was clearly out of his mind back then, and Arbcom should show that Wikipedia has matured out of its embarrassing past.

Having a prior dispute with Sandifer at that time is like saying you once disagreed with the methods of Colonel Kurtz.

Sadly, one of the worst effects of being under ArbCom restrictions is that history has been written to demonize you. Hardly anyone remembers all that madness Phil got up to in 2005, because the ArbCom has constructed a laughably warped version of history in which Phil is a lilywhite victim and I am a dangerous stalker. Even now, people will express concern that I have never recanted my heresy and accepted the faith--they may know nothing about the issues involved in the cases, but they assume automatically that the history books are accurate and that, if I object to the way they are written, it is evidence that I cannot be fully trusted.

Yet you still worship at the altar of the false god. Try taking up arms against them instead, Jimmy is very vulnerable, especially in certain aspects concerning his tax returns.

[everyking]

Yet you still worship at the altar of the false god. Try taking up arms against them instead, Jimmy is very vulnerable, especially in certain aspects concerning his tax returns.

Which false god do I worship?

[RMHED]

Yet you still worship at the altar of the false god. Try taking up arms against them instead, Jimmy is very vulnerable, especially in certain aspects concerning his tax returns.

Which false god do I worship?

Wikipedia!!!!!

Stop worshipping and start attacking, that way at least you may gain some self respect. As things stand you are kissing ass, with nothing to show for it and that is truly sad.

[everyking]

Yet you still worship at the altar of the false god. Try taking up arms against them instead, Jimmy is very vulnerable, especially in certain aspects concerning his tax returns.

Which false god do I worship?

Wikipedia!!!!!

Stop worshipping and start attacking, that way at least you may gain some self respect. As things stand you are kissing ass, with nothing to show for it and that is truly sad.

Whose ass am I kissing?

[RMHED]

Yet you still worship at the altar of the false god. Try taking up arms against them instead, Jimmy is very vulnerable, especially in certain aspects concerning his tax returns.

Which false god do I worship?

Wikipedia!!!!!

Stop worshipping and start attacking, that way at least you may gain some self respect. As things stand you are kissing ass, with nothing to show for it and that is truly sad.

Whose ass am I kissing?

Those with the Wiki power. Try being very offensive instead.

[everyking]

After a long lull in activity pertaining to my appeal, I figured the ArbCom had decided to subject it to yet another pigeonhole veto and I'd almost stopped paying attention. Imagine my surprise, then, to see today that Carcharoth has proposed three motions representing three different methods of handling a incorrigible troublemaker like myself.

The first motion calls for the restriction to be lifted immediately. This proposal is, of course, nothing more than a matter of procedure; it is far too sane to be taken seriously by a committee composed of lunatics, and as such it has received no votes so far.

The second motion is standard ArbCom fare: it proposes to reject my appeal, but also to punish me for making it by revoking my right to appeal in the future. As you might expect, this motion is more popular; so far there are two votes in favor and none against. If the arbitrators could travel back in time to witness the burning of heretics, they would bring along a canister of gasoline and recommend it to the inquisitors.

The third motion proposes that the restriction remain in place for only two more years, until August 2011, six years after the restriction was originally imposed. It also warns, however, that should I dare to commit the grave offense of appealing the restriction again, the timetable will be reset. With three votes in favor and none against, this motion is doing even better than motion two.

Have you noticed that the arbitrators really don't like to hear appeals? For them, it's just expected that a convicted wiki-criminal will display some measure of penitence, and this business of obstinately refusing to accept one's guilt even years after being sentenced is more than they can bear. It's like a crime in itself!

This post has been edited by everyking:

[One]

"Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe..." - two days ago

Question: have you ever been happy with anything on Wikipedia?

[TungstenCarbide]

The third motion proposes that the restriction remain in place for only two more years, until August 2011, six years after the restriction was originally imposed. I

Six Years! What did you do - rape children or something?

[everyking]

"Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe..." - two days ago

Question: have you ever been happy with anything on Wikipedia?

Am I expected to be happy with a two-year extension? When I wrote that I imagined perhaps a few months, certainly nothing longer than a year. You're imposing another two years even though none of you can cite any interaction of any kind in three to four years. In what universe is that reasonable? I'd rather keep the status quo and have indefinite right to appeal rather than accept this two year deal; at least then I could hope that the 2010 or 2011 ArbComs might be somewhat more rational.

The third motion proposes that the restriction remain in place for only two more years, until August 2011, six years after the restriction was originally imposed. I

Six Years! What did you do - rape children or something?

Much worse than that, I'm afraid--I complained that a Wikipedia admin was using his powers abusively.

[One]

"Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe..." - two days ago

Question: have you ever been happy with anything on Wikipedia?

Am I expected to be happy with a two-year extension? When I wrote that I imagined perhaps a few months, certainly nothing longer than a year. You're imposing another two years even though none of you can cite any interaction of any kind in three to four years. In what universe is that reasonable? I'd rather keep the status quo and have indefinite right to appeal rather than accept this two year deal; at least then I could hope that the 2010 or 2011 ArbComs might be somewhat more rational.

You said that you would be happy. Dominic proposed "one year" as a possible option, so surely you imagined that. If you prefer to appeal repeatedly, you better say something quick on-Wiki.

Incidentally, I believe NYB still intends to explain himself if you really want. He's been busy.

At any rate, you didn't answer my question. When was the last time you were happy with Wikipedia? Have you ever been happy?

[Kato]

"Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe..." - two days ago

Question: have you ever been happy with anything on Wikipedia?

Am I expected to be happy with a two-year extension? When I wrote that I imagined perhaps a few months, certainly nothing longer than a year. You're imposing another two years even though none of you can cite any interaction of any kind in three to four years. In what universe is that reasonable? I'd rather keep the status quo and have indefinite right to appeal rather than accept this two year deal; at least then I could hope that the 2010 or 2011 ArbComs might be somewhat more rational.

You said that you would be happy. Dominic proposed "one year" as a possible option, so surely you imagined that. If you prefer to appeal repeatedly, you better say something quick on-Wiki.

Incidentally, I believe NYB still intends to explain himself if you really want. He's been busy.

At any rate, you didn't answer my question. When was the last time you were happy with Wikipedia? Have you ever been happy?

Why doesn't Arbcom just grow up and remove all the restrictions?

The supposed "crimes" of Everyking were at a time when Wikipedia was in the grip of hysteria, and none of them would be considered crimes now. I've shown earlier in this thread that Sandifer was utterly out of his mind in 2005-7, while the case that got EK desysopped now looks pathetic in hindsight.

If someone is imprisoned for an offense that is later legalized, you don't keep the person imprisoned or under sanctions. EK's "crimes" were from another era and the legal consensus has changed. Change with it.

[everyking]

At any rate, you didn't answer my question. When was the last time you were happy with Wikipedia? Have you ever been happy?

That's not a simple question. Happy in what sense? In some ways I am happy with Wikipedia, and in some ways I'm not. Is the real question "have you ever been happy with the way the ArbCom has treated you?" If that's the case, then the answer is no.

[taiwopanfob]

If you prefer to appeal repeatedly, you better say something quick on-Wiki.

As if that will make a difference! ArbCom is going to Maximize Drama, as it normally does, regardless of any input from the Lower Classes.

Looking back at the EK3 case, I see that Gmaxwell had the right idea: both Mr. Sandifer and Everyking should be laboring under the same highly visible restrictions. That the restrictions are completely on Everyking is part (but only part!) of the injustice here, as it is in similar cases. The only limitation imposed upon Sandifer is that he not use his Magic Powers against Everyking.

Basically, it should be S.O.P. for ArbCom to impose bilateral restraining orders. If Alice is not to interact with Bob, then Bob must be told never to talk to Alice.

It is also disturbing that we get arguments like this out of sitting ArbCommers:

I see no reason to amend this. If Everyking has no intention of interacting with Phil Sandifer, then the restriction has a net effect of absolutely zero. If the objective is to gain permission to resume interacting with Phil, then that permission will not be forthcoming (nor is it likely that it ever will).

If Everyking is simply hoping for a declaration that he is "an editor in good standing", then I am glad to reiterate it; that remaining restriction in now way reduces any standing he may have in the community. In fact, it would be an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past were it not for the fact that Everyking himself persistently raises it at regular intervals. — Coren (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck is this so-called Arbitrator blabbering about here? His second paragraph makes no sense at all after reading his first: if the "remaining restriction in now(sp) way reduces any standing he may have", then why should the restriction persist? Why not impose "net effect of absolutely zero" restrictions on everyone, including Coren?

Furthermore, Coren's first paragraph is also more than a little dishonest too ("I see no reason to amend this. Blah blah."). Due to this restriction, Everyking is being forced to carefully inspect the history of every single page he edits for Sandifer's presence, and back away if even a hint of him can be found. I'd say this would indeed be a tedious experience, and one any rational editor would be keen to be relieved from as quickly as possible.

[One]

Furthermore, Coren's first paragraph is also more than a little dishonest too ("I see no reason to amend this. Blah blah."). Due to this restriction, Everyking is being forced to carefully inspect the history of every single page he edits for Sandifer's presence, and back away if even a hint of him can be found. I'd say this would indeed be a tedious experience, and one any rational editor would be keen to be relieved from as quickly as possible.

Bullshit. He's not allowed to comment on Sandifer. Period. He can comment on things that Sandifer has commented on. He could probably even vote on an AFD that Sandifer brought. There's no reason for him to search edit histories.

That said, I agree that such restrictions should run in both ways.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kato]

Furthermore, Coren's first paragraph is also more than a little dishonest too ("I see no reason to amend this. Blah blah."). Due to this restriction, Everyking is being forced to carefully inspect the history of every single page he edits for Sandifer's presence, and back away if even a hint of him can be found. I'd say this would indeed be a tedious experience, and one any rational editor would be keen to be relieved from as quickly as possible.

Bullshit. He's not allowed to comment on Sandifer. Period.

Even if EK never wants to involve himself with Sandifer again, why can't he anyway?

I've already explained that Sandifer was clearly out of his mind between 2005-7. Check my links earlier in the thread. The guy was a disgrace and needed to be commented on. Here's Sandifer recreating the Judd Bagley biography in 2007 out of revenge for something he read on the admins noticeboard. The guy was out of control.

The bottom line is that EK will be facing 6 years of strange sanctions for insignificant reasons, meanwhile you've had nightmare admins running around whose misbehaviour has single-handedly humiliated Wikipedia in the international news, and these people haven't received a blink.

This Arbcom decision is an embarrassment.

[taiwopanfob]

Bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...out_Snowspinner

X) Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia. Should he do so, he may be blocked by any administrator (other than Snowspinner) for a short time, up to one week; after the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be one year.

I emphasize the first clause. If he is to remain on the right side of this restriction, EK must carefully inspect the history of every page he edits to ascertain the likelihood he will end up interacting with Sandifer, and back away.

There is no other way around this. Indeed, if there was, ArbCom would have presumably covered the case with another restriction.

That said, I agree that such restrictions should run in both ways.

Contract law: given the restriction in place for Alice and Bob, what should happen if Alice or Bob ends up leaving the project? Perhaps some kind of time-out clause, if either party goes inactive for a set period of time voids the restriction.

[One]

Even if EK never wants to involve himself with Sandifer again, why can't he anyway?

I've already explained that Sandifer was clearly out of his mind between 2005-7. Check my links earlier in the thread. The guy was a disgrace and needed to be commented on. Here's Sandifer recreating the Judd Bagley biography in 2007 out of revenge for something he read on the admins noticeboard. The guy was out of control.

Saw it the first two times. I agree.

I emphasize the first clause. If he is to remain on the right side of this restriction, EK must carefully inspect the history of every page he edits to ascertain the likelihood he will end up interacting with Sandifer, and back away.

There is no other way around this. Indeed, if there was, ArbCom would have presumably covered the case with another restriction.

He asked, it was answered. It doesn't work that way.

[taiwopanfob]

He asked, it was answered. It doesn't work that way.

The answers are all unbinding, and of the form "we intend to be reasonable". Alas, Men With Guns who say they Intend To Be Reasonable™ set off alarm bells on many levels. I can't speak for EK of course, but I suspect that given his personal experience he simply does not trust you will actually be reasonable when a case is filed against him.

[Kato]

This is a complete joke.

What a shambles. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Arbcom haven't looked this petty, silly and incompetent since Fred Bauder was trying to redirect the bios of WP critics to the article "Clown".

As they say on the internet: Utter fail.

[One]

He asked, it was answered. It doesn't work that way.

The answers are all unbinding, and of the form "we intend to be reasonable". Alas, Men With Guns who say they Intend To Be Reasonable™ set off alarm bells on many levels. I can't speak for EK of course, but I suspect that given his personal experience he simply does not trust you will actually be reasonable when a case is filed against him.

The answers are from ArbCom, so they are as authoritative as any other rules on Wikipedia. He earlier asked if he could vote and ask questions on the same pages as Phil, which also came back as a unanimous "yes." Of course he can, and he has--several times. Do you have a single example of anyone suggesting to enforce the rule in the asinine way you propose?

Look, I'm not defending the restriction, but it isn't as ludicrous as you (or Everyking) pretend.

[Kato]

So this restriction has no practical merit, and we've learned that it has no moral merit either, given that Sandifer's outrageous history is there for all to see.

So what is the point? Other than making Arbcom look petty and incompetent?

[Sarcasticidealist]

So this restriction has no practical merit, and we've learned that it has no moral merit either, given that Sandifer's outrageous history is there for all to see.

So what is the point? Other than making Arbcom look petty and incompetent?

On its face, that's how it looks to me too. I'm really curious about Brad's reasons, though, because I believe that he is neither petty nor incompetent (nor does he exactly have a track record of applying sanctions where none are warranted; if anything, it's the reverse).

[everyking]

To update on this situation, the arbitrator Wizardman, in a moment of relative lucidity -- which might as well be magic by ArbCom standards! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) -- presented a fourth motion, in which he proposed extending the restriction for only one year. Four years of this weren't enough, but maybe five would be? Not according to Carcharoth, who says it's gotta be six years and nothing less:

There needs to be an extended period when this matter is not raised at all, before it can expire. One year is not enough in my view. The normal limit of a year for a ban should not apply to less onerous sanctions, such as "non-interaction" restrictions. Two years to wait for a restriction like this to expire is more than reasonable, given the events that prompted the restriction to be put in place.

Do you suppose Carcharoth even knows what "events ... prompted the restriction to be put in place"? It doesn't sound like he knows. Here's the condensed history of what went down back in 2005:

1) Phil made a bunch of questionable admin actions. I argued with him about it and criticized his actions in relevant discussions on the AN pages.

2) Phil took me to the ArbCom over it; knowing that I would face ArbCom sanctions if a case took place, I agreed to not criticize him anymore, although I was still permitted to engage in official dispute resolution processes against him. The ArbCom case was dropped.

3) Several weeks passed, then there was an RfC against Phil, which I endorsed. Phil made a snide and insulting comment about my endorsement on the RfC talk page. I then asked him to not criticize me, just as I had agreed not to criticize him. He refused, so I withdrew from the agreement, and he took me to arbitration.

4) The ArbCom convicted me of criticizing Phil and placed me under a bunch of restrictions.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Kato]

Wikipedia failed to rein in Sandifer at the height of his excesses and he caused many problems to the site.

Sandifer was clearly off the rails. In March 2005, he got himself involved in so much drama, and so many cases, that he even filed an Arbitration case against himself!

The astonishing thing about EK's response to Sandifer back then was that more people didn't try and counter Sandifer themselves. Instead, Sandifer got a free pass to cause more mayhem until he burned himself out (2007-8) with a series of JzG style retirements. In the meantime, Sandifer had caused significant damage, sown disharmony all over the place, and helped corrupt the culture. With barely a helpful edit in between. Well Done Phil!

Restrictions on EK 6 years later? What a joke.

[One]

So this restriction has no practical merit, and we've learned that it has no moral merit either, given that Sandifer's outrageous history is there for all to see.

So what is the point? Other than making Arbcom look petty and incompetent?

On its face, that's how it looks to me too. I'm really curious about Brad's reasons, though, because I believe that he is neither petty nor incompetent (nor does he exactly have a track record of applying sanctions where none are warranted; if anything, it's the reverse).

Not only is NYB the antithesis of a hanging judge, but he was vocally supporting Everyking for about a year. Now, of course, Everyking is as spiteful toward him as any other Arbitrator.


Incidentally, Everyking, motion 3 still gives you an opportunity to appeal. A future ArbCom could choose to ignore the restriction and allow you to appeal without penalty--just as this ArbCom did in January by accepting an appeal that was technically forbidden by the previous class. The motion just purports to add a penalty to the appeal. The theory is apparently that you need to demonstrate that you can stop talking about the past and move on before the restriction is lifted. (Not defending it, but that's the theory.)

The important thing is: if you wish to negotiate with the arbitrators, you should do it on Wikipedia--now. I will not proxy for you in this conversation.

[Kato]

Not only is NYB the antithesis of a hanging judge, but he was vocally supporting Everyking for about a year. Now, of course, Everyking is as spiteful toward him as any other Arbitrator.

Well Brad's dropped a bollock on this one. Result: (1) continued antagonism and drama, (2) Arbcom look like petty fools incapable of viewing cases fairly, (3) Everyone moves one step further to decapitating Arbcom.

And all of this was needless and easily avoidable. Job done.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[trenton]

You're a moron for continuing to work at a place which puts such vindictive, spiteful people at the top.

After all the years of work you've put in, they don't even respect you enough to pass a largely symbolic gesture. They jerk you around because you let them.

[everyking]

You're a moron for continuing to work at a place which puts such vindictive, spiteful people at the top.

After all the years of work you've put in, they don't even respect you enough to pass a largely symbolic gesture. They jerk you around because you let them.

I see your point. I won't argue with you about any of that.

[taiwopanfob]

Do you have a single example of anyone suggesting to enforce the rule in the asinine way you propose?

The current situation -- with ArbCom threatening to smack EK with another 2 years or more of completely useless punishment -- strongly suggests that current ArbCom members' promises re: enforcement are worthless. They will be forgotten if some dispute in the future arises.

Why not try some trust-building? If ArbCom saying "Hey, we aren't the anal retentive assholes you make us out to be", then rather than make unenforceable promises about what they may or may not do in the future -- or at least the current crop of ArbCom members -- why not prove it by writing in all these exceptions into the restriction? That is, specifically limit ArbCom's future actions?

Wikilawyering is a bad word at Wikipedia. But so is boundary testing (wp:point, it's called). Could it be that the brighter the lines, the easier (and less dramatic) everyone's job is?

[Milton Roe]

Wikilawyering is a bad word at Wikipedia. But so is boundary testing (wp:point, it's called). Could it be that the brighter the lines, the easier (and less dramatic) everyone's job is?

No, it's a case of the brighter the lines, the stupider the rules quite often reveal themselves to be.

This is true of all rule-based systems, which is why laws are sometimes written with deliberate fuzziness, and enforced by cops, juries, judges, and parole boards, all of which take many other factors into consideration. Is it fair? No. But it's even less fair if you don't do it that way. The are often no good answers often when binary decision-making is forced on an often inherently fuzzy and analog world.

[EricBarbour]

Arbcom haven't looked this petty, silly and incompetent since Fred Bauder was trying to redirect the bios of WP critics to the article "Clown".

Fixed that for you. Just so it can't be ignored. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

You're a moron for continuing to work at a place which puts such vindictive, spiteful people at the top.
After all the years of work you've put in, they don't even respect you enough to pass a largely symbolic gesture. They jerk you around because you let them.

Fixed that for you. Just so it can't be ignored. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[One]

The current situation -- with ArbCom threatening to smack EK with another 2 years or more of completely useless punishment -- strongly suggests that current ArbCom members' promises re: enforcement are worthless. They will be forgotten if some dispute in the future arises.

Currently, his "punishment" lasts indefinitely; two years is an improvement.

At any rate, other people have been similarly restricted (I think Rootology still is), and none of them have ever been punished merely for commenting on the same page as someone else. It restricts only commenting about Sandifer; it doesn't need exceptions because that's the damn rule. Interaction with and commenting on Sandifer. If it isn't one of those things, it isn't restricted.

[Kelly Martin]

It restricts only commenting about Sandifer; it doesn't need exceptions because that's the damn rule. Interaction with and commenting on Sandifer. If it isn't one of those things, it isn't restricted.

It seems remarkably stupid of you to continue for two more years a restriction that has not been violated for now what, four years, with regard to an editor who is barely involved in the project at this point anyway? It seems to me that the decision to extend it another two years is just abject pettiness on the part of the ArbCom.

I am assuming that you're all hoping that sometime in the next two years he'll do something—anything, really—that will allow you to extend his pariah status that much further, simply because you like having him around as a whipping boy. Making it two years just increases the chances he has of screwing up, not to mention it's long enough that he's virtually certain to complain about it (which, of course, will give you the excuse you need to whomp him about some more). If you made it six months there's the very real risk he'd just sit it out, and we can't have that now, can we?

[One]

Three years.

[Kelly Martin]

Three years.

I don't think you can fairly argue that everyking's "conduct restrictions" should include comments about Sandifer in off-wiki forums. Not that you care one whit about fairness, of course; can't have people expecting fair treatment.

[One]

Three years.

I don't think you can fairly argue that everyking's "conduct restrictions" should include comments about Sandifer in off-wiki forums. Not that you care one whit about fairness, of course; can't have people expecting fair treatment.

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

The only question is whether it's been long enough. I think it has, but one need not assume malice to see why arbitrators might reach the opposite conclusion.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

The only question is whether it's been long enough. I think it has, but one need not assume malice to see why arbitrators might reach the opposite conclusion.

You guys are endlessly inconsistent. A disfavored person like EK can be sanctioned for two more years based on something he did three years ago that didn't even violate the rules you'd put in place (at no time did the ArbCom say he couldn't comment about Phil off-wiki; no reasonable person would conclude that such a restriction was intended since at the time it was widely understood that the ArbCom's authority did not extend to off-wiki sites, all facts which you well know). On the other hand, if a favored individual, say Jimmy Wales or David Gerard, calls another editor names on some other public forum, you just shrug your shoulders and pretend you can't do anything.

Yes, yes, I know, you aren't required to be fair. But you bloody well know that you should be.

And, yes, no malice is required; this can be entirely explained by stupidity. Y'all have shown no shortage of that commodity.

[TungstenCarbide]

Three years.

I don't think you can fairly argue that everyking's "conduct restrictions" should include comments about Sandifer in off-wiki forums. Not that you care one whit about fairness, of course; can't have people expecting fair treatment.

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

The only question is whether it's been long enough. I think it has, but one need not assume malice to see why arbitrators might reach the opposite conclusion.

Jesus One - look at yourselves. SlimVirgin, who's done orders of magnitude more sleazy and underhanded things than Everyking, including socking, pov pushing and participating in a star chamber hosted at wikia (hand in hand with Wiess), got only a six month deadminship.
In a relative universe, how could one not assume malice.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[sbrown]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

And if a user actually did sent harassing notes to the employer of another user and admitted to it on wikipedia what happened then? Oh thats different of course.

[Moulton]

Non Serviam

Hell Everyking, all you have to do is send private suckup emails to the arbitors to show your subservience and you'll be an admin again in no time.

Now that Greg has notably lampooned the practice of offering disingenuous messages of fealty, loyalty, and subservience, the treacherous game of Trust and Betrayal has ramped up another notch in the Dramaturgy Index.

If you don't believe me, just ask Malleus about the subtleties of speculating on the true intentions of conflicted players in an agonistic drama.

[Robster]

I don't think you can fairly argue that everyking's "conduct restrictions" should include comments about Sandifer in off-wiki forums. Not that you care one whit about fairness, of course; can't have people expecting fair treatment.

Not to mention the simple absurdity of it all.

What does sanctioning off-wiki comments have to do with "building an encyclopedia"?

Nothing, of course. Not that anyone making the decision cares.

[Kato]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

I don't think such "offenses" would guarantee sanctions still holding in 2009. If they did, then Sandifer himself, Gerard, JzG and half of Wikipedia's inner circle would be under the same sanctions.

These guys didn't just muse about sending notification to Wordbomb's employer, as you know. They made numerous attacks on Wordbomb, Patrick Byrne (Wordbomb's employer) and Overstock, and even used Wikipedia articles to expand the feud.

There are two editors involved in these EK sanctions: Everyking and Sandifer. One of them was causing mayhem at Wikipedia. The other one, Everyking, who did nothing but have a moan here, is still under sanctions. What a joke.

[One]

Not to mention the simple absurdity of it all.

What does sanctioning off-wiki comments have to do with "building an encyclopedia"?

Nothing, of course. Not that anyone making the decision cares.

A volunteer project should not allow users to threaten calling the employers of other users. Attempting to intimidate others based on their participation on Wikipedia is more destructive to building encyclopedia than most things we sanction for.

ArbCom 2008 took a dim view of it in the Jim62sch/OrangeMarlin case, and I happen to believe that one didn't go far enough. They should have been hit much harder for that crap.

Anyhow, two arbitrators have now voted in favor of removing all restrictions, and it looks like one year will edge out two years once all the votes are it.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

A volunteer project should not allow users to threaten calling the employers of other users. Attempting to intimidate others based on their participation on Wikipedia is more destructive to building encyclopedia than most things we sanction for.

ArbCom 2008 took a dim view of it in the Jim62sch/OrangeMarlin case, and I happen to believe that one didn't go far enough. They should have been hit much harder for that crap.

You might also be interested to note that FeloniousMonk contacted the Media Lab to try to get me into trouble there.

Filll also contacted them as well, but not for such a nefarious purpose.

It seems that IDCab is a particularly notorious gang in that regard.

[One]

You might also be interested to note that FeloniousMonk contacted the Media Lab to try to get me into trouble there.

Can you forward that to arbcom-l? I don't think that user ever got the scrutiny he deserved.

[Moulton]

You might also be interested to note that FeloniousMonk contacted the Media Lab to try to get me into trouble there.

Can you forward that to arbcom-l? I don't think that user ever got the scrutiny he deserved.

Done. Let me know if it arrived OK.

I sent the complete round of messages, including side responses from others whom I alerted at the time.

Incidently, another of FM's cronies (or perhaps it was his own sock puppet) using the moniker "Centaur of Attention" also contacted the faculty at Utah State University with a similar kind of complaint.

Let me know if you want a follow-up on that one, too.

All in all, IDCab has a lot of answering to do, both on WP and on WV. As you may recall, IDCab did come before ArbCom about a year or so ago, but I think ArbCom sent the case back to RfC or something.

Your mail to 'arbcom-l' with the subject "Per CHL's Request on W-R" is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.

The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list

Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive
notification of the moderator's decision.

I presume these messages will not be posted to the public without consent of those penning them.

[One]

I presume these messages will not be posted to the public without consent of those penning them.

Things sent to the list are supposed to be confidential, but it's a list of 15 unpaid people (plus unknown future arbitrators), so it's impossible for me to assure you that it would never get out (cf. Wikileaker), but it's not supposed to happen.

[Moulton]

I presume these messages will not be posted to the public without consent of those penning them.

Things sent to the list are supposed to be confidential, but it's a list of 15 unpaid people (plus unknown future arbitrators), so it's impossible for me to assure you that it would never get out (cf. Wikileaker), but it's not supposed to happen.

I can live with that.

[TungstenCarbide]

A volunteer project should not allow users to threaten calling the employers of other users. Attempting to intimidate others based on their participation on Wikipedia is more destructive to building encyclopedia than most things we sanction for.

Filll also contacted [my employer] as well, but not for such a nefarious purpose.

Filll? is that Snowspinner?

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Moulton]

A volunteer project should not allow users to threaten calling the employers of other users. Attempting to intimidate others based on their participation on Wikipedia is more destructive to building encyclopedia than most things we sanction for.

Filll also contacted the university as well, but not for such a nefarious purpose.

Filll? is that Snowspinner?

As far as I know, Filll Bob Stevens does not use other aliases on WP. He is also said to be webmaster for Orly Taitz (spokesperson for the anti-Obama "Birthers" movement).

[Kato]

Phil Sandifer was formerly known as Snowspinner. Filll is someone totally different.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

I don't think such "offenses" would guarantee sanctions still holding in 2009. If they did, then Sandifer himself, Gerard, JzG and half of Wikipedia's inner circle would be under the same sanctions.

These guys didn't just muse about sending notification to Wordbomb's employer, as you know. They made numerous attacks on Wordbomb, Patrick Byrne (Wordbomb's employer) and Overstock, and even used Wikipedia articles to expand the feud.

There are two editors involved in these EK sanctions: Everyking and Sandifer. One of them was causing mayhem at Wikipedia. The other one, Everyking, who did nothing but have a moan here, is still under sanctions. What a joke.

Actually, Everyking did more than have a moan here. He displayed guts and integrity during some of Wikipedia's blackest hours, back in 1985 2005. I ran across this ANI exchange the other day, where a solitary EK is standing up to SlimVirgin, Willmcw (now Will Beback,) El C, David Gerard, and Snowspinner (now Phil Sandifer.) A memorable line from EK:

I expect this would all look pretty dismal from the outside. We justify it in our own way, which satisfies some of us, but in reality it's repression of a particular POV.

[Milton Roe]

Actually, Everyking did more than have a moan here. He displayed guts and integrity during some of Wikipedia's blackest hours, back in 1985.

Damn, that must have been BLACK. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

That's for pointing out all my own stupid typos and brainfarts. I'm just sorry it wasn't Kato or Greg. Who I'm going to get eventually.

[Robster]

What does sanctioning off-wiki comments have to do with "building an encyclopedia"?

A volunteer project should not allow users to threaten calling the employers of other users. Attempting to intimidate others based on their participation on Wikipedia is more destructive to building encyclopedia than most things we sanction for.

ArbCom 2008 took a dim view of it in the Jim62sch/OrangeMarlin case, and I happen to believe that one didn't go far enough. They should have been hit much harder for that crap.

Anyhow, two arbitrators have now voted in favor of removing all restrictions, and it looks like one year will edge out two years once all the votes are it.

You have no standing to involve yourself in off-wiki business of any kind.

More importantly - what can you do to stop someone who is harassing users in "Real Life"? Ban them? Oh, I'm SURE that scares them.

Leave off-wiki business to the proper authorities, and concentrate on the rapidly-sinking state of on-wiki business. You'd be much better off, and at least you'd have some measure of control.

[Moulton]

When prominent Wikipedians are crafting false and defamatory biographies about real people, and corruptly blocking those who are against that practice, responsible Wikipedians do have an obligation to protect those off-wiki targets (many of whom don't have the time, inclination, or knowhow to lodge a protest).

[dtobias]

Actually, Everyking did more than have a moan here. He displayed guts and integrity during some of Wikipedia's blackest hours, back in 1985.

Wow, Wikipedia has a longer history than I thought! Next you'll be saying it was founded in 1776, or maybe 1492 or 1066?

[everyking]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation. Contra Kato, this is behavior that would likely earn users restrictions in 2009.

The only question is whether it's been long enough. I think it has, but one need not assume malice to see why arbitrators might reach the opposite conclusion.

In reality, although this supposed "off-site intimidation" occurred in 2006, it was not brought up until January 2009, when Phil decided to accuse me of masterminding the incident in which he was visited by police who were curious about a violent short story he had written as a first-person narrative on his LiveJournal blog. At that point, the ArbCom apparently decided to adopt Phil's wild accusation as its justification for maintaining the restriction, but until then I never heard a peep about it. I suppose Phil realized that the newly-elected arbitrators might actually be sympathetic to my case and that it was therefore necessary to employ this last-resort strategy.

In essence, the sanctions were preserved with an on-wiki justification until that justification became completely untenable, at which point it morphed into an off-wiki justification. The usual phrase is "grasping at straws".

[One]

In reality, although this supposed "off-site intimidation" occurred in 2006, it was not brought up until January 2009, when Phil decided to accuse me of masterminding the incident in which he was visited by police who were curious about a violent short story he had written as a first-person narrative on his LiveJournal blog. At that point, the ArbCom apparently decided to adopt Phil's wild accusation as its justification for maintaining the restriction, but until then I never heard a peep about it. I suppose Phil realized that the newly-elected arbitrators might actually be sympathetic to my case and that it was therefore necessary to employ this last-resort strategy.

Maybe. They're pretty sympathetic to your case, as they proved in January by removing all but one restriction even though you were theoretically banned from appeal.

I don't believe ArbCom ever adopted that story, just the fact that you posted about him off-site in a fairly hair-curling manner; enough to give them pause about removing that one restriction. If you think they're wrong, go tell them so on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

Maybe. They're pretty sympathetic to your case, as they proved in January by removing all but one restriction even though you were theoretically banned from appeal.

Just for the record, that's another falsehood. I was not banned from appeal; I was granted one appeal per year, and you contortionist arbitrators decided to interpret that as "one appeal per year beginning after the first anniversary of the appeal in which that restriction was imposed".

[One]

Maybe. They're pretty sympathetic to your case, as they proved in January by removing all but one restriction even though you were theoretically banned from appeal.

Just for the record, that's another falsehood. I was not banned from appeal; I was granted one appeal per year, and you contortionist arbitrators decided to interpret that as "one appeal per year beginning after the first anniversary of the appeal in which that restriction was imposed".

"no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." - Feb 2008.

If it was once every calendar year, why would the date of passage matter? Sam Blacketer specifically said that it would be one year from passage, and no one ever seemed to adopt your interpretation except you. At the least you see it's ambiguous, but that ArbCom interpreted in a way friendly to you?

This post has been edited by One:

[TungstenCarbide]

Actually, Everyking did more than have a moan here. He displayed guts and integrity during some of Wikipedia's blackest hours, back in 1985. I ran across this ANI exchange the other day, where a solitary EK is standing up to SlimVirgin, Willmcw (now Will Beback,) El C, David Gerard, and Snowspinner (now Phil Sandifer.) A memorable line from EK:

I expect this would all look pretty dismal from the outside. We justify it in our own way, which satisfies some of us, but in reality it's repression of a particular POV.

This is really good reading;

But there is no actual evidence that the user was a sockpuppet to begin with... Everyking 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've unblocked the user. This is just not acceptable. Get an IP check. Everyking 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, emboldened by the consensus you inevitably get when you blast admin actions left and right, you've gone ahead and unilaterally overturned the block? I'm reblocking. Snowspinner 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear arbcom, please extract your collective heads from you ani - you defrocked the wrong one.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[everyking]

Maybe. They're pretty sympathetic to your case, as they proved in January by removing all but one restriction even though you were theoretically banned from appeal.

Just for the record, that's another falsehood. I was not banned from appeal; I was granted one appeal per year, and you contortionist arbitrators decided to interpret that as "one appeal per year beginning after the first anniversary of the appeal in which that restriction was imposed".

"no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." - Feb 2008.

If it was once every calendar year, why would the date of passage matter? Sam Blacketer specifically said that it would be one year from passage, and no one ever seemed to adopt your interpretation except you. At the least you see it's ambiguous, but that ArbCom interpreted in a way friendly to you?

I had considered two possible interpretations: that I was allowed one annual appeal beginning with the passage of the motion (thus one allowed appeal during the period Feb. 2008-Feb. 2009), and that I was allowed one appeal per calendar year. I had not even imagined the interpretation the ArbCom settled on, which seems to me to have been deliberately contrived as the interpretation least favorable to my interests.

[One]

I had considered two possible interpretations: that I was allowed one annual appeal beginning with the passage of the motion (thus one allowed appeal during the period Feb. 2008-Feb. 2009), and that I was allowed one appeal per calendar year. I had not even imagined the interpretation the ArbCom settled on, which seems to me to have been deliberately contrived as the interpretation least favorable to my interests.

Why would your February 2008 appeal not count as an appeal for the purposes of "no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes"? Did you even read the earlier arbitrator remarks confirming the once-annual-starting-now interpretation?

Even Avruch, who filed an appeal on your behalf believed that's probably what it meant. ("While I specifically opposed this element of the passed motion, the language could be seen to bar review of this case until Feb 23 2009 (by limiting review of the case to once per year beginning the date of the motions passing).") It's not a contortionist ArbCom interpretation--it's the plainest meaning of the words. And at any rate, they thought well enough of you to ignore their plain interpretation and vote on the motion to list all restrictions.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are genuine falsehoods about your case, but this isn't one of them.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

I had considered two possible interpretations: that I was allowed one annual appeal beginning with the passage of the motion (thus one allowed appeal during the period Feb. 2008-Feb. 2009), and that I was allowed one appeal per calendar year. I had not even imagined the interpretation the ArbCom settled on, which seems to me to have been deliberately contrived as the interpretation least favorable to my interests.

Why would your February 2008 appeal not count as an appeal for the purposes of "no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes"? Did you even read the earlier arbitrator remarks confirming the once-annual-starting-now interpretation?

Even Avruch, who filed an appeal on your behalf believed that's probably what it meant. ("While I specifically opposed this element of the passed motion, the language could be seen to bar review of this case until Feb 23 2009 (by limiting review of the case to once per year beginning the date of the motions passing).") It's not a contortionist ArbCom interpretation--it's the plainest meaning of the words. And at any rate, they thought well enough of you to ignore their plain interpretation and vote on the motion to list all restrictions.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are genuine falsehoods about your case, but this isn't one of them.

If the February 2008 appeal was included, then the restriction would be retroactive, which I had assumed was not the case.

Anyway, please, tell me what genuine falsehoods you believe are involved in my case? Your position during this whole debate is consistent with that of someone who believes I "had it coming".

[One]

If the February 2008 appeal was included, then the restriction would be retroactive, which I had assumed was not the case.

And this appeal, where Sam Blacketer said otherwise. Did you forget it?

Anyway, please, tell me what genuine falsehoods you believe are involved in my case? Your position during this whole debate is consistent with that of someone who believes I "had it coming".

Whatever you think, Everyking. Can you speak for yourself at ArbCom? I don't want to do it for you any more.

Anyhow, basically everything Raul654 has ever said about you is false. This comment springs to mind.

This post has been edited by One:

[Moulton]

Basically everything Raul654 has ever said about you is false. This comment springs to mind.

Good grief. How many haphazard theories of mind can you count in that rambling indictment?

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Actually, Everyking did more than have a moan here. He displayed guts and integrity during some of Wikipedia's blackest hours, back in 1985.

Wow, Wikipedia has a longer history than I thought! Next you'll be saying it was founded in 1776, or maybe 1492 or 1066?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif) OK, I was distracted. But according to The Onion, I believe the 1492 date is correct.

[everyking]

Carcharoth now says:

What I would like to see is Everyking demonstrating that he can restrain himself from filing appeals for at least a whole year, and just let the restriction quietly expire, thus demonstrating that he is truly able to move on from this.

Move on from what? The thing I haven't moved on from is the fact that I'm under an ArbCom restriction. I can guarantee that spending two more years under a restriction will not help me to move on from the fact that I'm under the restriction. If I "restrain myself" from filing an appeal for a certain amount of time, what on earth does that prove? Is Carcharoth saying that the only people who should be freed from restrictions are the people who don't care that they're under restrictions? Is this just a Wikipedia thing, or would the same logic apply just as well to the real-world justice system?

[Kato]

Anyhow, basically everything Raul654 has ever said about you is false. This comment springs to mind.

Raul was one of the three in Sandifer's "District Attorney Office" back in 2005. Sandifer declared himself "dictator", and immediately filed silly claims against people including Everyking. Raul was also an arbitrator at the time, as was Ambi, the other self-appointed member of the DA Office. Both voted against Everyking at the time.

Instead of holding sanctions over Everyking in relation to Sandifer now, Arbcom should be apologizing to Everyking for gross incompetence and blatant corruption when dealing with the Sandifer dispute back in 2005.

Get serious, please.

[Moulton]

Is this just a Wikipedia thing, or would the same logic apply just as well to the real-world justice system?

It's not just a Wikipedia thing, but Wikipedia tends to amplify and exemplify unjust practices that more evolved governance models abandoned ages ago.

One just has to appreciate that Wikipedia is a dramaturgy workshop that reifies medieval epochs. Medieval times are actually a very popular epoch in human history for fantasy war gaming.

[TungstenCarbide]

Carcharoth now says:

What I would like to see is Everyking demonstrating that he can restrain himself from filing appeals for at least a whole year, and just let the restriction quietly expire, thus demonstrating that he is truly able to move on from this.

I'm surprised to see Carcharoth say that. It implies by both word and tone that Everyking's appeals spring from a lack of self restraint and therefore it's Everyking who's 'causing trouble'. Why the hell shouldn't he file appeals every few months? Especially considering arbcom sanctions typically fall along those time spans (eg. SV's six month demotion).

It's starting to look more and more like Everyking is an unpleasant reminder to the arbcom of their poor judgment - they backed the wrong horse and time is beginning to tell. They de-admined the wrong guy.

Dear arbcom, please read this.

[Robster]

Basically everything Raul654 has ever said about you is false. This comment springs to mind.

Good grief. How many haphazard theories of mind can you count in that rambling indictment?

Anything Raul654 has said about anyone is suspect, simply because he said it.

He's one of those people who, if he told me the sky was blue, I'd look out a window to check for myself.

Any chance the ArbCom can find someone credible to use as the means by which they pursue this idiocy?

[trenton]

from Raul's little rant:

If I recall correctly, the only time you admitted the truth was after you used admin powers to give someone privacy violating material from some deletion revisions

Am I misremebering things or did Everyking never actually do this?

[Kelly Martin]

Am I misremebering things or did Everyking never actually do this?

He offered to make available the content of deleted articles upon request.

Note that this is generally regarded as something that administrators are permitted to do as long as they do so in a reasonable manner that respects the reason the article has been deleted. However, as he made the offer here on Wikipedia Review, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his intentions for making that offer were nefarious.

The ArbCom was never presented with any evidence that EK ever revealed the contents of any deleted article to anyone, appropriately or otherwise. As I've mentioned previously in this thread, that was a pretext (admitted as such in the arbcom-l discussion of the same).

[trenton]

That's just classic. Why the hell did you remove that rant Everyking? Professor Raul gives you a long lecture about "ignorantly mouthing off", distorting facts, and not being acquainted with the facts of what you're discussing while doing all the things he accuses you of. It's so bizarre that I'm almost tempted to believe that it was deliberately done....

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

If a user suggested sending harassing notes to the de facto employer of another user, I don't think the 2009 ArbCom would give it a pass just because it was off-wiki. It would actually be unfair to ignore off-site intimidation.

And if a user actually did sent harassing notes to the employer of another user and admitted to it on wikipedia what happened then?

I had a case where the proponent of a fairly cultic religion was using his employer's computers/IP to promote/defend that religion on the Wikipedia. I got a ban for just mentioning it ... never mind actually doing something ... and despite their being a fairly obvious meatpuppet team from the same religion playing dirty. Yes, Jossi was involved.

Now, I think that I am correct to say that the US Gov is a touch sensitive about such things (separation of government and religion ... someone fill in the gaps here). What the individual was doing was at least a civil offence or contrary to his employment contract, perhaps even a criminal offence (I am not sure which without looking).

OK, its no big deal, you might say. "University employing trolling the Wikipedia to promote the interests of his religion ... political party ... gang" ... whatever. Personally, I would not have wanted a reputation as a snitch, so I did not. There are enough snitches on the Pee-dia as it is ... the place is a wash with them.

I would guess that most employment contracts prohibit such activity, punishing it with dismissal, and some of such activity is genuinely unlawful or illegal.

So there arises an issue because if one knows of a crime being carried out, or one encourages or enables a crime to be carried out, then one become party to it. It is our basic social responsibility to raise the awareness to *some* authority. Which comes first ... society and its law, or the cult (Wikipedia).

In my case, merely questioning the legality of it got me banned ... for some putatively terrible "wiki-crime" on a par with eating my own babies. The offender who was using his university time and equipment got rewarded by being left off Scot Free ... having managed to remove his wiki-opponent.

I have been fighting a rear guard action for my reputation ever since, as each successive psycho-pedian - and others - is able to dig out that dirt.

[No one of consequence]

Am I misremebering things or did Everyking never actually do this?

He offered to make available the content of deleted articles upon request.

Note that this is generally regarded as something that administrators are permitted to do as long as they do so in a reasonable manner that respects the reason the article has been deleted. However, as he made the offer here on Wikipedia Review, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his intentions for making that offer were nefarious.

The ArbCom was never presented with any evidence that EK ever revealed the contents of any deleted article to anyone, appropriately or otherwise. As I've mentioned previously in this thread, that was a pretext (admitted as such in the arbcom-l discussion of the same).

I think the concern involved the specific article that was involved in his offer, which would have allegedly* been a controversial undeletion, and arguably would have shown poor administrative judgement had he actually gone ahead and given someone the content. So the proper concern was not that he did undelete a controversial article, but that he had poor judgement in such matters and might really do it some time.

*I say allegedly controversial since I don't remember which article it was.

[One]

And if a user actually did sent harassing notes to the employer of another user and admitted to it on wikipedia what happened then?

Reading this again, as from Baxter, I wonder if you can email arbcom-l about it. Or, failing that, one of the arbitrators individually. I don't think we've gotten the whole truth about that investigation.

I think the concern involved the specific article that was involved in his offer, which would have allegedly* been a controversial undeletion, and arguably would have shown poor administrative judgement had he actually gone ahead and given someone the content. So the proper concern was not that he did undelete a controversial article, but that he had poor judgement in such matters and might really do it some time.

*I say allegedly controversial since I don't remember which article it was.

It was deleted revisions of the article Gary Weiss. See here. At the time, implying that Mantanmoreland = Gary Weiss was considered a privacy violation, outing, proxying for a banned user, harassment, and a vicious lie all rolled into one. I think the deleted diffs said something about Mantanmoreland, so naturally offering such diffs would be a major crime.

Signpost article.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kelly Martin]

I think the concern involved the specific article that was involved in his offer, which would have allegedly* been a controversial undeletion, and arguably would have shown poor administrative judgement had he actually gone ahead and given someone the content. So the proper concern was not that he did undelete a controversial article, but that he had poor judgement in such matters and might really do it some time.

*I say allegedly controversial since I don't remember which article it was.

Forgive me, but need I remind you that I was on arbcom-l at the time, and I don't think you were. You could almost hear David Gerard cackling as he explained in his emails how this was just was we needed to desysop Everyking. The only question was whether EK here was the same person (that is, there was some debate as to whether some dastardly troll on Wikipedia Review might have been impersonating EK).

The dispute between David Gerard and Everyking was already well-entrenched when I joined the ArbCom; it's plainly obvious that DG wanted EK nuked from orbit, and the WR post was just what was needed.

The article in question was Gary Weiss. Draw what conclusions from that which you may.

[Moulton]

Mr. Baxter, meet Mr. Baxter...

And if a user actually did sent harassing notes to the employer of another user and admitted to it on wikipedia what happened then?

Reading this again, as from Baxter, I wonder if you can email arbcom-l about it. Or, failing that, one of the arbitrators individually. I don't think we've gotten the whole truth about that investigation.

This is fascinating. Intrigue, drama, irony and all that.

Were the practices employed to unmask PoetGuy in violation of an applicable policy against contacting a user's employer?

Should investigators be held to the same standards as miscreants?

In the balance between verifiability and truth, which do you value more (especially in an age and culture where fakery is rampant).

[No one of consequence]

I think the concern involved the specific article that was involved in his offer, which would have allegedly* been a controversial undeletion, and arguably would have shown poor administrative judgement had he actually gone ahead and given someone the content. So the proper concern was not that he did undelete a controversial article, but that he had poor judgement in such matters and might really do it some time.

*I say allegedly controversial since I don't remember which article it was.

Forgive me, but need I remind you that I was on arbcom-l at the time, and I don't think you were. You could almost hear David Gerard cackling as he explained in his emails how this was just was we needed to desysop Everyking. The only question was whether EK here was the same person (that is, there was some debate as to whether some dastardly troll on Wikipedia Review might have been impersonating EK).

Well then, the public presentation of the dispute was as I recalled.

Mr. Baxter, meet Mr. Baxter...

And if a user actually did sent harassing notes to the employer of another user and admitted to it on wikipedia what happened then?

Reading this again, as from Baxter, I wonder if you can email arbcom-l about it. Or, failing that, one of the arbitrators individually. I don't think we've gotten the whole truth about that investigation.

This is fascinating. Intrigue, drama, irony and all that.

Were the practices employed to unmask PoetGuy in violation of an applicable policy against contacting a user's employer?

Should investigators be held to the same standards as miscreants?

In the balance between verifiability and truth, which do you value more (especially in an age and culture where fakery is rampant).

Interesting series of questions here.

1. Is it acceptable to tell someone who has a long history of manipulation and prevarication, "Look, just go away quietly or I will be forced to hold a detailed public discussion which could prove embarrassing."?

2. What if the message is considerably more forceful than that which I suggested above?

3. If you contact someone's employer to say, "Did you know that Joe Smith is pretending to be a co-worker named Jane Doe online?" is that investigation or harassment?

4. And what if the investigator is a member of Arbcom?

5. And if that person has since resigned over another matter, should anything further be done?

Poetlister, if he is reading this, should definitely contact One per his request.

[Moulton]

Poetlister, if he is reading this, should definitely contact One per his request.

Yes, if he indeed has been outed, then he might as well launch the next phase of the drama in a supporting role, by responding to One's invitation.

[Kelly Martin]

Well then, the public presentation of the dispute was as I recalled.

Perhaps so, but the public presentation set out by DG and company is, shall we say, skewed. Wikipedians, especially those of the ilk of David Gerard, are not to be trusted.

[One]

Well then, the public presentation of the dispute was as I recalled.

It was pretty clearly a pretext. Even Sandifer said, "I'm skeptical that this is in and of itself grounds for an emergency desysopping. It seems more like a case of the arbcom seeing an opportunity to justify a penalty they've wanted to put out for quite a while." Of course, Sandifer was also a member of WR. If their rationale was honest, his neck would also be on the line.

Tony Sidaway believed it though.

[Kelly Martin]

It was pretty clearly a pretext. Even Sandifer said, "I'm skeptical that this is in and of itself grounds for an emergency desysopping. It seems more like a case of the arbcom seeing an opportunity to justify a penalty they've wanted to put out for quite a while." Of course, Sandifer was also a member of WR. If their rationale was honest, his neck would also be on the line.

I suspect that the EK desysopping did a lot to feed the BADSITES furor, too.

Then again, DG is a drama queen, and it should be of little surprise that DG tends to push policy positions that tend to generate drama. I think he's played a very large role in the prevention of the development of reasonable governance on Wikipedia.

[Moulton]

Tony Sidaway believed it though.

As noted elsewhere this morning, it appears we could all use a review of scientific methods of hypothesis testing.

[Sarcasticidealist]

As noted elsewhere this morning, it appears we could all use a review of scientific methods of hypothesis testing.

Moulton, please allow me to sidetrack this thread to give you what I hope will be useful advice: the reason many people seem to find you annoying is not that i. you're wrong or ii. they think hypothesis testing (or whateve else you're on about at any given time) is useless. The reason is that simply bringing up hypothesis testing, without relating it to the nominal subject at hand, does not actually add any value to the conversation.

Like many other literate people with a certain amount of leisure time and no discernible marketable skills, I've dabbled in writing fiction. One of the cardinal rules of writing fiction (a field in which, unlike in community encyclopaedia writing, the notion of IAR is actually a good one), is to "show, not tell". If you want to convey information about a character or a setting or a plot point to a reader, you should do it by writing about it in a way that that information is conveyed by implication, rather than outright stating it: better to pepper a character's dialogue with profanity than to announce to the reader that he's inclined towards vulgarity.

You spend a lot of times telling us things. We know hypothesis testing is the basis of the scientific method. If you really want to drive that point home, identify flawed hypotheses and provide evidence that they don't stand up to scrutiny. Or post your own hypotheses and descibe your attempts to test them (all of this, if at all possible, without ever explicitly mentioning your old friends H0 and H1).

But don't just sit here telling us about the scientific method without actually saying anything directly about whatever matter happens to be at hand. That's annoying.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Moulton]

Not sure if you've caught up with other active threads here today, but you might see that there was a candidate issue around which Greg has suggested such an exercise.

I was prepared to go with that, pending a green light from the traffic cops.

Turns out that specific case study will not be entertained, so I'll wait for another one to surface.

[TungstenCarbide]

I think the concern involved the specific article that was involved in his offer, which would have allegedly* been a controversial undeletion, and arguably would have shown poor administrative judgement had he actually gone ahead and given someone the content. So the proper concern was not that he did undelete a controversial article, but that he had poor judgement in such matters and might really do it some time.

*I say allegedly controversial since I don't remember which article it was.

Forgive me, but need I remind you that I was on arbcom-l at the time, and I don't think you were. You could almost hear David Gerard cackling as he explained in his emails how this was just was we needed to desysop Everyking. The only question was whether EK here was the same person (that is, there was some debate as to whether some dastardly troll on Wikipedia Review might have been impersonating EK).

The dispute between David Gerard and Everyking was already well-entrenched when I joined the ArbCom; it's plainly obvious that DG wanted EK nuked from orbit, and the WR post was just what was needed.

The article in question was Gary Weiss. Draw what conclusions from that which you may.

This just keeps getting better and better. Jimbo's circle of top buttsnorklers gut one of Wikipedia's most active and productive contributors to protect that Wiess sleazeball.

Or maybe it's more accurate to say they intended to 'get' Everyking who wasn't toeing the line, and didn't really care about sleazeballs like Wiess stinking up the place.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Milton Roe]

The dispute between David Gerard and Everyking was already well-entrenched when I joined the ArbCom; it's plainly obvious that DG wanted EK nuked from orbit, and the WR post was just what was needed.

The article in question was Gary Weiss. Draw what conclusions from that which you may.

This just keeps getting better and better. Jimbo's circle of top buttsnorklers gut one of Wikipedia's most active and productive contributors to protect that Wiess sleazeball.

Oh, yes, this has been noted before. Once you're a "made man" in the WP-eschelon you can do no wrong. Only a member of the family is then permitted to "take care of you," if you later prove to be an uncontrollable problem. Think of the Joe Pesci character in Casino.

In the case of Weiss the buttsnorkling was editing Martin Luther as Mantanmoreland for Nazi themes alongside SlimVirgin, and then pushing her "outing danger" buttons when newbie Bagley/Wordbomb showed up and tried to point out the Conflict of Interest problem when it came to Byrne/shortselling articles and of course the Weiss BLP (which had been started by Mantan). That was back in the day when WP hardly acknowledged COI existed: if you wanted to edit your own BLP as a username who didn't admit to being YOU, there wasn't much anybody could do about it (wups, a little hole shaping up there in the WP NPOV protocols: what happens when it's COI vs. OUTING?)

Anyway, through Slim and Gerard and eventually involving the clueless Jimbo, all kinds of immunological craziness took place on WP, just to get at Wordbomb. Some of it made major news, like the rangeblock that effectively took out an entire ISP from WP editing, in Utah. Everyking, a massive content contributor, was partly simply a crossfire casualty in that pointless and particularly stupid war.

[Kelly Martin]

Or maybe it's more accurate to say they intended to 'get' Everyking who wasn't toeing the line, and didn't really care about sleazeballs like Wiess stinking up the place.

Ding ding ding. While Everyking would probably had had more defenders if he hadn't inadvertently stuck his foot into the Gary Weiss mess, the fact remains that there were people who were gunning for him and were going to take him down eventually.

[Random832]

I had considered two possible interpretations: that I was allowed one annual appeal beginning with the passage of the motion (thus one allowed appeal during the period Feb. 2008-Feb. 2009), and that I was allowed one appeal per calendar year. I had not even imagined the interpretation the ArbCom settled on, which seems to me to have been deliberately contrived as the interpretation least favorable to my interests.

Why would your February 2008 appeal not count as an appeal for the purposes of "no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes"?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) I'll take "because it was made prior to the starting point of the named period" for $100, Alex. The motion was made, if I understand correctly, in response to the Feb 2008 appeal - therefore (if I am correct) by definition the Feb 2008 appeal was not within the period of time described as "starting the date this motion passes" [unless, I suppose, the motion was rushed within the same calendar day as the appeal was made]

"once annual starting now" can only mean once in Feb 2008-Feb 2009 not including the earlier Feb 2008 appeal or once in Feb 2008-Dec 2008 (and once in Jan 2009-Dec 2009 etc). It CANNOT mean "zero times in Feb 2008-Feb 2009 after the motion passed". That is not a legitimate meaning of those words.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Kelly Martin]

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) I'll take "because it was made prior to the starting point of the named period" for $100, Alex. The motion was made, if I understand correctly, in response to the Feb 2008 appeal - therefore (if I am correct) by definition the Feb 2008 appeal was not within the period of time described as "starting the date this motion passes" [unless, I suppose, the motion was rushed within the same calendar day as the appeal was made]

"once annual starting now" can only mean once in Feb 2008-Feb 2009 not including the earlier Feb 2008 appeal or once in Feb 2008-Dec 2008 (and once in Jan 2009-Dec 2009 etc). It CANNOT mean "zero times in Feb 2008-Feb 2009 after the motion passed". That is not a legitimate meaning of those words.

So what happened was they wrote a remedy that they thought meant he would have to wait a year to appeal, but due to inartful drafting on their part, didn't actually have that effect. Then when he violated what they thought their rules were, they held that against him, even though it was due to their error, and not his.

Of course, it doesn't matter, because EK was supposed to have gotten the real message, which was "Go away, little boy, and leave us alone, already". It's all his fault for not being so complacently compliant.

[Random832]

The messed up thing of it all is - this could all have been avoided if they'd just written "Starting one year after this motion is passed" - that would have left no ambiguity.

[gomi]

Over 400 posts later, this can only be described as having devolved into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-head arbitrator". Can we give it a rest?

[Kelly Martin]

The messed up thing of it all is - this could all have been avoided if they'd just written "Starting one year after this motion is passed" - that would have left no ambiguity.

Well, the ArbCom has its fair share of lawyer wannabees; that type is especially prone to overdrafting. You'd think that NYB would be smart enough to catch such mistakes, though.

Over 400 posts later, this can only be described as having devolved into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-head arbitrator". Can we give it a rest?

The underpinnings of why EK has become the ArbCom's favorite whipping boy are interesting from a standpoint of understanding how Wikipedia's ruling elite reacts to stimuli. It's interesting (to me, at least) how several of Wikipedia's clashing titans combined to completely puke on EK's parade; the episode is a startling study in dysfunction.

I'm sure there'll be more to discuss on this topic soon enough. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Moulton]

The underpinnings of why EK has become the ArbCom's favorite whipping boy are interesting from a standpoint of understanding how Wikipedia's ruling elite reacts to stimuli. It's interesting (to me, at least) how several of Wikipedia's clashing titans combined to completely puke on EK's parade; the episode is a startling study in dysfunction.

I'd love to see a study comparing cases like that of EK to the generic model of a dysfunctional society which Dostoevsky put forward in Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov.

[TungstenCarbide]

Over 400 posts later, this can only be described as having devolved into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-head arbitrator". Can we give it a rest?

the sheer magnitude of the arbcom's stupidity and surliness being exposed in this thread has caught my interest. This is one thing WR does very well.

[everyking]

Motions 3 (two-year extension) and 4 (one-year extension) are currently tied with four votes each. Motion 1 (immediate lifting of restriction), surprisingly enough, has three votes; I hadn't expected it to attract any support, but apparently a few of the arbitrators reflected on the matter enough to reach a sensible conclusion.

One of the most amusing things about this whole situation is that I've been under a whole litany of restrictions in the past, and they've been gradually lifted one by one over time--so when reviewing the remaining restriction, wouldn't it make sense to consider what happened when the other restrictions were lifted? In each case, my editing patterns did not change after the restrictions were removed, and no one accused me of taking advantage of their absence to cause trouble. For example, I was banned from posting on the Administrators' Noticeboard pages for two years because I questioned and criticized some admin actions on those pages. In November 2007, that ban expired--so what did I do? Basically nothing. I post to those pages very infrequently--maybe once every six months or so--and in the two years since the ban expired no one has accused me of any misconduct on those pages.

But the ArbCom doesn't even think to consider the matter from that angle. To the arbitrators, it's much more relevant to consider how long it's been since the last time they told me to shut up and go away and how long I ought to remain under the restriction as a penalty for exercising my right to appeal too freely.

[One]

One of the most amusing things about this whole situation is that I've been under a whole litany of restrictions in the past, and they've been gradually lifted one by one over time--so when reviewing the remaining restriction, wouldn't it make sense to consider what happened when the other restrictions were lifted?

What is your audience? If you want arbitrators to read it, post it there. This is a good point.

[Cla68]

Over 400 posts later, this can only be described as having devolved into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin-head arbitrator". Can we give it a rest?

I wasn't following this thread very closely, but I just read the posts from the last few days and this is one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long time, if that counts for anything. To be clear, the posts are funny, the way Everyking was treated by David Gerard and the others wasn't.

Does David Gerard stay out of WP politics on WP now because he knows that there are enough editors/admins who can do so who would like to do to him what he did to Everyking?

[TungstenCarbide]

One of the most amusing things about this whole situation is that I've been under a whole litany of restrictions in the past, and they've been gradually lifted one by one over time--so when reviewing the remaining restriction, wouldn't it make sense to consider what happened when the other restrictions were lifted?

What is your audience? If you want arbitrators to read it, post it there. This is a good point.

Oh, you mean go and reason to the group that fucked you in the first place, that has shown you ill will, that doesn't answer your questions, that's trying pass a resolution that prevents you from even appealing, that slapped you with a sentence orders of magnitude more sever than sentences given to creeps who've done things orders of magnitude worse? Do you honestly think that if Everyking made that comment to the arbcom it would help his case? I think it's much more likely that every time he makes a good point it's perceived as a thorn in the arbcoms paw, reminding them of their own incompetence, providing motive to further thump and belittle him.

[everyking]

One of the most amusing things about this whole situation is that I've been under a whole litany of restrictions in the past, and they've been gradually lifted one by one over time--so when reviewing the remaining restriction, wouldn't it make sense to consider what happened when the other restrictions were lifted?

What is your audience? If you want arbitrators to read it, post it there. This is a good point.

Oh, you mean go and reason to the group that fucked you in the first place, that has shown you ill will, that doesn't answer your questions, that's trying pass a resolution that prevents you from even appealing, that slapped you with a sentence orders of magnitude more sever than sentences given to creeps who've done things orders of magnitude worse? Do you honestly think that if Everyking made that comment to the arbcom it would help his case? I think it's much more likely that every time he makes a good point it's perceived as a thorn in the arbcoms paw, reminding them of their own incompetence, providing motive to further thump and belittle him.

Pretty much. I've actually made that argument before the ArbCom in the past, and of course they don't listen.

[Moulton]

This case is but one of many that have come back to haunt the current ArbCom panel, who are obliged to reckon the legacy of corrupt practices of the past few years.

As Lar has notably remarked a year ago, WP doesn't do Due Process. It's not just one or two lamentable cases of injustice. It's a pervasive pattern that can no longer be denied, ignored, or overlooked.

Even if WP decides at this late date to construct an ethical system of governance going forward, there remains the legacy of corruption and injustice that will be nigh impossible to clean up after the fact.

This case illustrates the lingering resistance of the system to clean up its messes.

[One]

Pretty much. I've actually made that argument before the ArbCom in the past, and of course they don't listen.

Two thirds of the committee is new this year. This is not a monolithic institution; frankly, there's some generational friction between current and former arbitrators. To pick a flattering metaphor, it would be like refusing to raise civil rights claims in the Warren Court because "the Supreme Court doesn't listen." Different people can evaluate arguments freshly and often reach different conclusions--observe the three votes you already have for lifting all restrictions.

You've attacked arbitrators who voted in support of your RFA, but you haven't raised many of the good points in your favor. It's not that hard to press ctrl-C and navigate to wikipedia. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you do that.

Yes, TungstenCarbide, I do think making the arguments there will help his case. If anything, refusing to make arguments on Wikipedia might make arbitrators uneasy. He's already been asked several times to comment on the present alternatives.

This post has been edited by One:

[TungstenCarbide]

Pretty much. I've actually made that argument before the ArbCom in the past, and of course they don't listen.

Two thirds of the committee is new this year. This is not a monolithic institution; frankly, there's some generational friction between current and former arbitrators. To pick a flattering metaphor, it would be like refusing to raise civil rights claims in the Warren Court because "the Supreme Court doesn't listen." Different people can evaluate arguments freshly and often reach different conclusions--observe the three votes you already have for lifting all restrictions.

You've attacked arbitrators who voted in favor of your RFA, but you haven't raised many of the good points in your favor. It's not that hard to press ctrl-C and navigate to wikipedia. If you want to help yourself, I suggest you do that.

Yes, TungstenCarbide, I do think making the arguments there will help his case. If anything, refusing to make arguments on Wikipedia might make arbitrators uneasy. He's already been asked several times to comment on the present alternatives. Stonewalling is not an effective strategy.

And yet NewYorkBrad states;

"I am 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."

what was that you were saying about stonewalling, One?

But take a step back and look at the motions; five or six years of sanctions for one of the project's hardest working and most loyal contributors, who's behavior overall is head and shoulders above many of the 'power' admins. Time has not been kind Sandifer's role in this mess like it has to Everyking. Think on that.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Moulton]

NYBrad's undisclosed reasons invite speculation on the issue.

Perhaps he is apprehensive about unleashing the drama that would likely ensue in the wake of a reversal of the previous judgment against EK.

Given that the English Wikipedia is on the tipping point between being a putative encyclopedia and becoming a nascent drama engine, I would expect that encyclopedists would be leery of feeding the drama beast.

It's a difficult call, because systemic injustice eats away at the legitimacy of the site as an educational model, while raising the ante for future courtroom drama.

[One]

And yet NewYorkBrad states;

"I am 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."

what was that you were saying about stonewalling, One?

NYB offered to explain himself by email or on-wiki if Everyking would ask him. He never did until this request for amendment. As it turns out, NYB has been very busy with real life since this new request has come up.

That said, do you see why it might be a bad strategy to say nothing on Wikipedia while raising arguments on another site, refusing to copy them because (a totally different) ArbCom "won't listen?" If he didn't want to comment on-Wiki, he didn't need to file an appeal.

But take a step back and look at the motions; five or six years of sanctions for one of the project's hardest working and most loyal contributors, who's behavior overall is head and shoulders above many of the 'power' admins. Time has not been kind Sandifer's role in this mess like it has to Everyking. Think on that.

You don't need to preach to the choir, and neither does Everyking.

[Moulton]

You don't need to preach to the choir, and neither does Everyking.

It remains to be shown that this choir are all singing the same hymn.

[everyking]

That said, do you see why it might be a bad strategy to say nothing on Wikipedia while raising arguments on another site, refusing to copy them because (a totally different) ArbCom "won't listen?" If he didn't want to comment on-Wiki, he didn't need to file an appeal.

I just think it's funny that for years the ArbCom rejected everything I said as baseless lies and even now regards me as some kind of irritant who won't shut up, yet you and apparently Carcharoth are telling me I should make arguments on-wiki. If I see a pressing need to say something on-wiki, I will; as it stands now I am content to express my views here. Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

You don't need to preach to the choir, and neither does Everyking.

It remains to be shown that this choir are all singing the same hymn.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by everyking:

[One]

Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

As a logical argument: this is not the same ArbCom.

[Moulton]

Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

As a logical argument: this is not the same ArbCom.

Nor is it the same EK, after years of beating his head against the brick wall.

I, too, have substantially revised my concept of WP (and thus my practices), relative to what they were two years ago.

Back then, if you engaged in extended logical argument, you were labeled as a "tendentious editor" and summarily blocked for it, without due process and without recourse.

As far as I can tell, things haven't really changed all that much since then.

[everyking]

Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

As a logical argument: this is not the same ArbCom.

And yet its behavior is remarkably similar, isn't it?

[Kelly Martin]

And yet its behavior is remarkably similar, isn't it?

Today's ArbCom is substantially more divided on fundamentals than any of its predecessors, and it is (I suspect) rare to find them speaking with one voice the way prior ArbComs tended to do.

[One]

Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

As a logical argument: this is not the same ArbCom.

And yet its behavior is remarkably similar, isn't it?

Like that time when Raul654 and Gerard decided to unblock Thekohser. Oh and remember in 2007 when three arbitrators spontaneously decided that they should remove all of your restrictions--even as you pointedly refused to interact with them?

No it's not, and you know it's not.

This post has been edited by One:

[No one of consequence]

Extended, logical argumentation has never been something the ArbCom has looked upon favorably.

As a logical argument: this is not the same ArbCom.

And yet its behavior is remarkably similar, isn't it?

Like that time when Raul654 and Gerard decided to unblock Thekohser. Oh and remember in 2007 when three arbitrators spontaneously decided that they should remove all of your restrictions--even as you pointedly refused to interact with them?

No it's not, and you know it's not.

I don't think he really wants the restrictions lifted. If he files the appeal on-wiki, but can't be bothered to copy and paste an argument that one arbitrator explicitly endorses to a location where the other arbitrators are expected to read it, then he's really after something else entirely.

I still think the Arbitrators should lift the restriction, if for no better reason than because it would undermine a fundamental article of faith for Everyking.

But in the meantime, "One," it's probably time to stop trying to help people who don't want to be helped. You've got other pressing business.

[A Horse With No Name]

Motions 3 (two-year extension) and 4 (one-year extension) are currently tied with four votes each. Motion 1 (immediate lifting of restriction), surprisingly enough, has three votes

Well, come on, come on, do the loco-motion with me! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

That said, do you see why it might be a bad strategy to say nothing on Wikipedia while raising arguments on another site...

That's not true. Everyking didn't say 'nothing' on Wikipedia.

What do you want him to do? Not discuss his case anywhere outside of that arbcom page ... every time he has a new idea or argument rush back and update the appeal ?

Did it occur to you, One, that the point came up only because of this off-wiki conversation? You can encourage Everyking to make his point at the arbcom page, you can even fault him if he doesn't, but don't blame him for having this discussion.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[No one of consequence]

That said, do you see why it might be a bad strategy to say nothing on Wikipedia while raising arguments on another site...

That's not true. Everyking didn't say 'nothing' on Wikipedia.

What do you want him to do? Not discuss his case anywhere outside of that arbcom page ... every time he has a new idea or argument rush back and update the appeal ?

Did it occur to you, One, that the point came up only because of this off-wiki conversation? You can encourage Everyking to make his point at the arbcom page, you can even fault him if he doesn't, but don't blame him for having this discussion.

Generally, you should make your best in case in your first post, but if you think of a good argument later (whatever its genesis) then yes, you should update your case on-wiki.

The argument is not that he should not be discussing his case here, but rather that having discussed the case and made a new argument which impressed one Arbitrator, he ought to update his appeal on-wiki, and that failing to do so because Arbcom is corrupt, evil, incompetent, stupid or whatever, flies in the face of the stated reason for the appeal in the first place.

[everyking]

That said, do you see why it might be a bad strategy to say nothing on Wikipedia while raising arguments on another site...

That's not true. Everyking didn't say 'nothing' on Wikipedia.

What do you want him to do? Not discuss his case anywhere outside of that arbcom page ... every time he has a new idea or argument rush back and update the appeal ?

Did it occur to you, One, that the point came up only because of this off-wiki conversation? You can encourage Everyking to make his point at the arbcom page, you can even fault him if he doesn't, but don't blame him for having this discussion.

Generally, you should make your best in case in your first post, but if you think of a good argument later (whatever its genesis) then yes, you should update your case on-wiki.

The argument is not that he should not be discussing his case here, but rather that having discussed the case and made a new argument which impressed one Arbitrator, he ought to update his appeal on-wiki, and that failing to do so because Arbcom is corrupt, evil, incompetent, stupid or whatever, flies in the face of the stated reason for the appeal in the first place.

Well, the point is now moot, because somebody made the argument on-wiki for me anyway. Personally, I probably wouldn't have used the part about "closing the door on me once and for all", but it may have been an astute remark, as it will no doubt help to sweeten the deal for the arbitrators. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

There are a few other good arguments in there, too. For example: "An editor who is 'in good standing' but for an editing restriction is not really in good standing, at least for any non-Orwellian definition of good standing."

[No one of consequence]

Well, the point is now moot, because somebody made the argument on-wiki for me anyway. Personally, I probably wouldn't have used the part about "closing the door on me once and for all", but it may have been an astute remark, as it will no doubt help to sweeten the deal for the arbitrators. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

There are a few other good arguments in there, too. For example: "An editor who is 'in good standing' but for an editing restriction is not really in good standing, at least for any non-Orwellian definition of good standing."

It still can't hurt to speak up for yourself. And yes, I have always found the argument, "He is in good standing but for..." to be a bit peculiar.

[everyking]

Coren says: "I'd be in favor that a declined appeal cannot be repeated unless new grounds (such as evidence of change, or new information) can be presented. "I didn't like the previous decision" is never valid grounds for appeal." Really? So in other words, the ArbCom is never wrong, and all its previous decisions are correct and just. But I thought there were substantial disagreements between current and former arbitrators...isn't that what you said, One?

[RMHED]

.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[One]

Fun fact of the day: ArbCom is composed of individuals who sometimes disagree.

In fact, disagreements between arbitrators and generations of arbitrators are probably more striking now than they ever have been. But to notice this trend, one must first appreciate that arbitrators are individuals.

[everyking]

Carcharoth is now apparently saying that he thinks I might prefer a continued restriction: "I may even support full lifting of the restriction, but am reluctant to do that without hearing further from Everyking (who did say "I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date") and Phil (who may have objections to an immediate lifting of the restriction). If Everyking wants a shorter expiration date, or has good arguments for why a full lifting is preferable to the 'setting of an expiration date' solution to this that he seemed willing to accept, then he should say so soon."

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Fun fact of the day: ArbCom is composed of individuals who sometimes disagree.

In fact, disagreements between arbitrators and generations of arbitrators are probably more striking now than they ever have been. But to notice this trend, one must first appreciate that arbitrators are individuals.

Perhaps I've grown accustomed to not thinking of them as individuals because they've always insisted on doing all their meaningful deliberations off-wiki and in secret and then presenting a united front during the actual votes. The best way to counter that perception would be to conduct public deliberations and have more votes in which the outcome has not been predetermined. Since you seem to acknowledge that the original 2005 decision was unfair, how do you explain it if not as a combination of groupthink and malice? How do you explain the fact that it has been continually upheld since then, even by the 2009 ArbCom which you claim is so radically different from past incarnations?

This post has been edited by everyking:

[A Horse With No Name]

Fun fact of the day: ArbCom is composed of individuals who sometimes disagree.

Okay, so which one on Arbcom has the best body? Crass minds are curious. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Moulton]

There is much to be said for writing and publishing a minority opinion.

All advances begin life as a minority viewpoint.

A healthy culture allows for the presentation and discussion of competing viewpoints, especially those that are poised to overthrow an anachronistic view whose time has come.

[One]

Fun fact of the day: ArbCom is composed of individuals who sometimes disagree.

In fact, disagreements between arbitrators and generations of arbitrators are probably more striking now than they ever have been. But to notice this trend, one must first appreciate that arbitrators are individuals.

Perhaps I've grown accustomed to not thinking of them as individuals because they've always insisted on doing all their meaningful deliberations off-wiki and in secret and then presenting a united front during the actual votes. The best way to counter that perception would be to conduct public deliberations and have more votes in which the outcome has not been predetermined.

Fun fact of the day: the votes for your request are being conducted publicly, and the arbitrators publicly disagree with each other on your request.

I don't understand how this has escaped your notice. It's bleeding obvious.

The decision is not preordained, and as such it would be beneficial for you to argue your case. Instead, you've mocked an arbitrator that asked you to. I can only conclude that Thatcher is right: you don't ultimately want the restriction lifted. You're looking for something somewhat different.

[Moulton]

I can only conclude that Thatcher is right: you don't ultimately want the restriction lifted. You're looking for something somewhat different.

Groveling to implore ArbCom to correct one recognizable act of injustice is less meaningful than convincing people that Wikipedia, if it is to survive, needs a fully fair and functional governance structure in the first place.

[Kelly Martin]

The decision is not preordained, and as such it would be beneficial for you to argue your case. Instead, you've mocked an arbitrator that asked you to. I can only conclude that Thatcher is right: you don't ultimately want the restriction lifted. You're looking for something somewhat different.

That would be consistent with the last four years of his interaction with Wikipedia, too.

[everyking]

The decision is not preordained, and as such it would be beneficial for you to argue your case. Instead, you've mocked an arbitrator that asked you to. I can only conclude that Thatcher is right: you don't ultimately want the restriction lifted. You're looking for something somewhat different.

That would be consistent with the last four years of his interaction with Wikipedia, too.

I really appreciate all this support, guys. But since apparently I don't want the restriction lifted, reverse psychology would dictate that the ArbCom should lift it just to spite me, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Moulton]

Vengeance is fine, sayeth the bored.

[everyking]

So the motion extending my restriction by one year was enacted. Nevertheless I plan to continue appealing roughly once every six months, so if my next appeal early next year fails the restriction will be reset, and that will continue indefinitely until the ArbCom musters the political will to vote for the lifting of the restriction.

[Sarcasticidealist]

So the motion extending my restriction by one year was enacted.

Unless I'm very much mistaken (which does happen from time to time, on account of my being an idiot), that motion shortened, rather than extended, your sanction.

Welcome to the no-spin zone.

[TungstenCarbide]

So the motion extending my restriction by one year was enacted. Nevertheless I plan to continue appealing roughly once every six months, so if my next appeal early next year fails the restriction will be reset, and that will continue indefinitely until the ArbCom musters the political will to vote for the lifting of the restriction.

Sounds like a matter of honor now.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Sounds like a matter of honor now.

Wait - are you suggesting that Everyking is behaving other than pragmatically in his approach to this? I'm going to have to lie down and let that allegation bounce around my cranial cavity for a while, it's just so shocking.

[TungstenCarbide]

Sounds like a matter of honor now.

Wait - are you suggesting that Everyking is behaving other than pragmatically in his approach to this? I'm going to have to lie down and let that allegation bounce around my cranial cavity for a while, it's just so shocking.

Matters of honor can be pragmatic, let me know if you need it explained.

[everyking]

Sounds like a matter of honor now.

Wait - are you suggesting that Everyking is behaving other than pragmatically in his approach to this? I'm going to have to lie down and let that allegation bounce around my cranial cavity for a while, it's just so shocking.

Do you think I should be more pragmatic? Let's say the ArbCom kept you under a sanction for several years even though you did nothing during all that time to violate it. How would you react to that situation?

[Moulton]

One good atrocity deserves another.

How would you react to that situation?

I would write atrocious song parodies about it.

[Kato]

One good atrocity deserves another.

How would you react to that situation?

I would write atrocious song parodies about it.

Careful now.

[One]

"Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe..." - two days ago
...

Am I expected to be happy with a two-year extension? When I wrote that I imagined perhaps a few months, certainly nothing longer than a year. You're imposing another two years even though none of you can cite any interaction of any kind in three to four years. In what universe is that reasonable? I'd rather keep the status quo and have indefinite right to appeal rather than accept this two year deal; at least then I could hope that the 2010 or 2011 ArbComs might be somewhat more rational.

You got a year, yet you're not happy. Shocked, shocked I am.


Incidentally, TTT archived this before NYB had a chance to explain himself, even though he left a note saying he would.

This post has been edited by One:

[everyking]

Incidentally, TTT archived this before NYB had a chance to explain himself, even though he left a note saying he would.

Oh well--he can always come here and explain himself in this thread, right? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

So the motion extending my restriction by one year was enacted. Nevertheless I plan to continue appealing roughly once every six months, so if my next appeal early next year fails the restriction will be reset, and that will continue indefinitely until the ArbCom musters the political will to vote for the lifting of the restriction.

Well maybe you could limited your "appeal" each six months to one week connected by two weekends like National Public Radio does for its annoying fund-raising drives? They at least know that much more just irritates people who might otherwise give them some support.

[everyking]

Conscious that I have a long way to go before I can satisfy the ArbCom that I really don't plan to criticize Phil Sandifer in the future, I've asked for some advice as to how I might improve my editorial conduct. Since my failings are so blatant and severe that I am deemed less trustworthy than even an anonymous IP user, I am sure the ArbCom will have plenty of advice to offer and I look forward to hearing it. Perhaps if I work really hard to improve my conduct, I can eventually be extended the same level of trust granted to every person who clicks "edit this page" for the first time.

Well maybe you could limited your "appeal" each six months to one week connected by two weekends like National Public Radio does for its annoying fund-raising drives? They at least know that much more just irritates people who might otherwise give them some support.

I'll plan on that. Maybe we can make it some kind of big week-long wiki-festival/support rally kind of thing. If people get the impression that an EK appeal means a full week of fun, games, and celebration, maybe they won't be so irritated anymore--hell, maybe people will start calling on me to appeal more often? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[One]

Well maybe you could limited your "appeal" each six months to one week connected by two weekends like National Public Radio does for its annoying fund-raising drives? They at least know that much more just irritates people who might otherwise give them some support.

I'll plan on that. Maybe we can make it some kind of big week-long wiki-festival/support rally kind of thing. If people get the impression that an EK appeal means a full week of fun, games, and celebration, maybe they won't be so irritated anymore--hell, maybe people will start calling on me to appeal more often? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This comment, along with your latest reply on Wikipedia (about "since I have a year to wait") suggests that you might actually wait a year. If you do, I pledge $20.

This post has been edited by One:

[Kato]

Well maybe you could limited your "appeal" each six months to one week connected by two weekends like National Public Radio does for its annoying fund-raising drives? They at least know that much more just irritates people who might otherwise give them some support.

I'll plan on that. Maybe we can make it some kind of big week-long wiki-festival/support rally kind of thing. If people get the impression that an EK appeal means a full week of fun, games, and celebration, maybe they won't be so irritated anymore--hell, maybe people will start calling on me to appeal more often? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This comment, along with your latest reply on Wikipedia (about "since I have a year to wait") suggests that you might actually wait a year. If you do, I pledge $20.

This is like something from Shawshank Redemption.

Is the length of EK's suspension reliant on perceived insolence now?

We've established that the "crime" in question, taking Sandifer to task in 2006, would be thrown out of court. Just what is the point of this?

It's embarrassing that Arbcom has people who involve themselves in the legal profession in real life. This EK business is a travesty, apparently obvious to everyone but Arbcom themselves.

[Milton Roe]

This is like something from Shawshank Redemption.

Yes with the years of EK picking away with the little hammer. But it won't be over till we see Everyking crawl through the sewer. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/popcorn.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

It's embarrassing that Arbcom has people who involve themselves in the legal profession in real life.

Well you would certainly think that it would be an embarrassment. Not so much any single wrong decision but the convoluted process, crowdsourcing and cult of the amateur aspects.

[A Horse With No Name]

It's embarrassing that Arbcom has people who involve themselves in the legal profession in real life. This EK business is a travesty, apparently obvious to everyone but Arbcom themselves.

They are probably a bunch of shysters who couldn't fix a parking ticket. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[taiwopanfob]

This comment, along with your latest reply on Wikipedia (about "since I have a year to wait") suggests that you might actually wait a year. If you do, I pledge $20.

Good God, One, why are you even a member of this kangaroo court? Look at shit like this:

I was going to support the two-year deal until something hit me. Even when we ban users from Wikipedia for being terrible, we only do it for a year. It's awfully rare of us to go beyond a year, so in principle I create and support this one. Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In order to make a statement like this Wizardman must be willfully ignorant. There is no other way of saying this, it is impossible to argue this is some kind of accident. Why was he not immediately challenged?

Carcharoth's rant about EK not participating in his own punishment is most amusing, since he can't really understand why people aren't talking to him at all. Of course, he rationalizes away the issue with Sandifer's and NYB's silence -- "they don't have to say anything", according to this Arbitrator, but EK must Do The Dance Or Else™.

More ominously, it looks like he only dimly perceives that EK is pushing ArbCom's nose in its own excrement. Well, no, he is aware his nose is smeared in his own shit: Carcharoth simply doesn't understand why. This may well be a collective thing, since everyone voted for the continuance of the useless punishment ... when the easiest way to de-claw EK would have been to just drop his restriction, instead of enacting another one ("thou shalt not appeal", Or Else™ (cf. Risker)).

I'm gonna guess that EK is gunning for ArbCom's destruction, using his own completely legitimate claim as the crow-bar, and you guys are just far too predictable.


This post has been edited by taiwopanfob:

[One]

Risker supported immediately lifting this sanction. She doesn't deserve your scorn.

Everyking got what he claimed would make him happy. His last restriction is finite, and he doesn't have to do anything to have it lifted; that's all she's saying.

[Emperor]

What's this 25 page thread about?

[No one of consequence]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

[Lar]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

If I'm not mistaken, Everyking has said here that he intends to "pester them" about it once every 6 months, so that it won't ever get lifted.

[Kato]

[No one of consequence]

Yes, but Red really was guilty.

[Milton Roe]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

Yeah, but they'll probably find some way to prolong it for maximal lulz.

The Greeks understood this kind of thing: Prometheus, Tithonos, Sysiphus, Tantalus....

And there has to be some element of randomness included, too. 1 year "SO LONG AS...."

As Keats would have said:

Heard punsihments are sweet
Unheard punishments are sweeter...


Obviously Arbcom is trying their best for an epic Hellenic sort of divine punishment upon Everyking, but failing to quite get the essence of it. They need help. So I'm thinking of a modest proposal to help them through this trying difficulty.

MILTON'S SUGGESTION FOR YE DIVINE ARBCOMIRARY PUNISHMENT OF EVERYKING: (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

1) EVERYKING may not interact with Sandifer on WP. The terms of "interaction" being kept vague and lulzy as possible.

2) If EVERYKING protesteth, the term of punishment shall be lengthened arbirarily. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

3) The term of punishment otherwise shall be pi years = 3.14159265..... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

4) During certain periods, EVERYKING shall prove to the ArbCom his ability for a normal social interaction with Sandifer, via public email, by deliberately contacting him. These time periods where ONE (1) interaction shall occur, shall be set by the occurance of a lunar eclipse in North America (not solar-- we are talking about the moon going into shadow, something that happens on average several time a year in North America). (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

5) During the eclipse time, EVERYKING SHALL be required to contact Sandifer, and their exchange recorded. Said exchange must be longer than "hi." The essentially adequate nature of the social interaction shall be judged by Arbcom, and must include normal ordinary intimate conversation, such as occurs between females who are not enemies. Discussion of problems with hemorrhoids and the like. Adequate substitutions shall include information exchange about in-laws, financial problems, the antics of children not older than age four (or adopted small dogs acting as proxy for such), etc. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) Ruling shall be by 75% of ArbCom.

6) Deviation from the above, or inadequate interaction, will cause the Punishment Interval to increase by at least e = 1.71828... years. There shall be no limit on the number of increases of the punishment interval.

7) Interaction records of email exchanges between EVERYKING and Sandifer shall be kept on a file on Wikipedia, for public inspection, forever for 75 years after the certified deaths of both Everyking and Paul Sandifer.

=============

Coolhand, perhaps you can pass this along, in order to expedite ArbCom into doing what it obviously really wants to do in this case. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Moulton]

You left out the part about the commemorative comic opera.

[everyking]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

If I'm not mistaken, Everyking has said here that he intends to "pester them" about it once every 6 months, so that it won't ever get lifted.

When faced with an unjust decision, I think the correct course of action is to oppose it, rather than to simply accept it so as to pragmatically endear oneself to one's persecutors. Continued appeals will force the ArbCom to either do the right thing or continue to demonstrate its foolish, blind adherence to a wrongful decision make four years ago.

[A Horse With No Name]

When faced with an unjust decision, I think the correct course of action is to oppose it, rather than to simply accept it so as to pragmatically endear oneself to one's persecutors. Continued appeals will force the ArbCom to either do the right thing or continue to demonstrate its foolish, blind adherence to a wrongful decision make four years ago.

Everyking: Instead of appealing to the sense of justice or to the intellectual aspects of the case, why not aim for the libido? How about adding adding some provocative photos of yourself lifting weights or sunbathing to your User Page? You know, sex sells -- and you just might be a marketable aphrodisiac! With some hot photos to influence opinions, I am sure the Arbcom crew will be eating out the palm of your hand! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Moulton]

I suppose EK is galled over this example of injustice.

Speaking of gall, here is Gall's Law...

A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system.

If John Gall is correct, there is no hope for Wikipedia.

[Shalom]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

If I'm not mistaken, Everyking has said here that he intends to "pester them" about it once every 6 months, so that it won't ever get lifted.

When faced with an unjust decision, I think the correct course of action is to oppose it, rather than to simply accept it so as to pragmatically endear oneself to one's persecutors. Continued appeals will force the ArbCom to either do the right thing or continue to demonstrate its foolish, blind adherence to a wrongful decision make four years ago.

Oh come on, Everyking. Suppose ArbCom prohibited you from visiting the South Pole for an indefinite period. You appeal on principle that you should be able to visit the South Pole because you are a free man just like everyone else. After a dozen appeals they finally say you can visit the South Pole next year if you are willing to wait that long. Who cares? Just wait the year for the meaningless restriction to expire, and you will not visit the South Pole anyway.

Look, ArbCom sucks. But you're digging your own grave if you plan on appealing again.

[Kelly Martin]

Oh come on, Everyking. Suppose ArbCom prohibited you from visiting the South Pole for an indefinite period. You appeal on principle that you should be able to visit the South Pole because you are a free man just like everyone else. After a dozen appeals they finally say you can visit the South Pole next year if you are willing to wait that long. Who cares? Just wait the year for the meaningless restriction to expire, and you will not visit the South Pole anyway.

Look, ArbCom sucks. But you're digging your own grave if you plan on appealing again.

Step away from the kool-aid, Shalom.

[Lar]

If John Gall is correct, there is no hope for Wikipedia.

Who is John Gall?

[EricBarbour]

If John Gall is correct, there is no hope for Wikipedia.

Who is John Gall?

Gall's Law:

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."

Seriously, this thread is out of control. 26 pages.

EK should get a medal for generating the most dramah of anyone on WP.
He makes it here, he makes it there. He makes it everywhere.

[trenton]

Well, apparently certain people inhabit a parallel bizarro world in which the only thing preventing Everyking from going after Phil Sandifer is an arbcom "order". You know, because people would never, ever, dare disobey an all-powerful arbcom "order" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Mr. Everyking seems to be occupying his own parallel bizarro world. One in which the group of megalomaniacal buffoons running a kangaroo court must be obeyed. One in which you continue to volunteer at a place where the cult leader periodically hurls insults in your direction and the other "leaders" take every opportunity to kick you around.

Wikipedia != real life. It's pointless to take a stand and fight for justice from a bunch of bored teenagers. Step back and get some perspective. This is not Gandhi fighting the British.

The more I look at it, it seems that Everyking and arbcom are made for each other. Lots of busy-work pretending to be doing something significant and important while playing pointless political games that are of no consequence to anyone and accomplishing nothing but wasting time.

(I'm mostly referring to the previous generations of arbcom. This current one seems to be a couple of orders of magnitude better, but that ain't saying much when you're compared to the likes of David Gerard, Bauder, and Jayjg.)

[Somey]

Seriously, this thread is out of control. 26 pages.

Mind-boggling, isn't it?

The thing the ArbCom, and most of Wikipedia, don't understand is that Wikipedia isn't like a brick-and-mortar, real-world organization. It isn't just that they're actually at a disadvantage over things like this; they are, but the real problem is that a determined person can keep this sort of thing up for years, maybe decades, and there will always - always - be enough people lined up against them who are either bored enough, or opportunistic enough, to support him. The only way to stop it is to just drop the whole business, even if that means "giving in." But in real life, people aren't used to giving in unless they're facing overwhelming odds, and EK doesn't look overwhelming to them - after all, he's just some lines of text on a computer screen, from their perspective.

But if they care about the value of time, theirs and everyone else's, they'll just drop it. Fuck Phil Sandifer. Who could possibly give a shit about that guy? Who would be insane enough to even listen to a word he says?

Wikipedians, apparently.

[No one of consequence]

The thing the ArbCom, and most of Wikipedia, don't understand is that Wikipedia isn't like a brick-and-mortar, real-world organization. It isn't just that they're actually at a disadvantage over things like this; they are, but the real problem is that a determined person can keep this sort of thing up for years, maybe decades, and there will always - always - be enough people lined up against them who are either bored enough, or opportunistic enough, to support him. The only way to stop it is to just drop the whole business, even if that means "giving in." But in real life, people aren't used to giving in unless they're facing overwhelming odds, and EK doesn't look overwhelming to them - after all, he's just some lines of text on a computer screen, from their perspective.

I actually advised an arbitrator tonight that when Everyking makes his inevitable appeal, he should just be ignored, and the restriction be left to expire in a year as stated*. As I have said in many other wiki-battles, the first one to shut up usually wins in the long run.

*Of course, my judgement is suspect in such matters. The last editor I recommended unbanning because he would drop the drama and just edit articles didn't turn out too well...

[Somey]

I actually advised an arbitrator tonight that when Everyking makes his inevitable appeal, he should just be ignored, and the restriction be left to expire in a year as stated*. As I have said in many other wiki-battles, the first one to shut up usually wins in the long run.

In effect, you'll then be placing a restriction on all members of the ArbCom so that if they try to circumvent the ban on responding to EK's inevitable appeal, they'll have to be punished in some way.

Still, it could work... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[Cla68]

The thing the ArbCom, and most of Wikipedia, don't understand is that Wikipedia isn't like a brick-and-mortar, real-world organization. It isn't just that they're actually at a disadvantage over things like this; they are, but the real problem is that a determined person can keep this sort of thing up for years, maybe decades, and there will always - always - be enough people lined up against them who are either bored enough, or opportunistic enough, to support him. The only way to stop it is to just drop the whole business, even if that means "giving in." But in real life, people aren't used to giving in unless they're facing overwhelming odds, and EK doesn't look overwhelming to them - after all, he's just some lines of text on a computer screen, from their perspective.

As I have said in many other wiki-battles, the first one to shut up usually wins in the long run.

This may be true. If you examine the inputs in admin space from some of the long-term, active administrators like David Gerard or SV, this is often what they'll do. They'll state their position early in the thread and then disappear.

I agree with you, if the Committee is serious about this one year thing, they shouldn't mention it or respond to any questions about it until exactly one year has passed. In the meantime, let's close this thread and everybody back to editing! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Lar]

If John Gall is correct, there is no hope for Wikipedia.

Who is John Gall?

Gall's Law:

"A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work. You have to start over, beginning with a working simple system."

I think my question didn't work. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

c /ll/lt/ to get the joke, such as it was.

[No one of consequence]

I actually advised an arbitrator tonight that when Everyking makes his inevitable appeal, he should just be ignored, and the restriction be left to expire in a year as stated*. As I have said in many other wiki-battles, the first one to shut up usually wins in the long run.

In effect, you'll then be placing a restriction on all members of the ArbCom so that if they try to circumvent the ban on responding to EK's inevitable appeal, they'll have to be punished in some way.

Still, it could work... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

Unfortunately, Mediawiki doesn't have a "slap upside the head" button.

[Moulton]

What about WP:Trout?

[One]

I actually advised an arbitrator tonight that when Everyking makes his inevitable appeal, he should just be ignored, and the restriction be left to expire in a year as stated*. As I have said in many other wiki-battles, the first one to shut up usually wins in the long run.

This strikes me as a very good idea.

[everyking]

Oh come on, Everyking. Suppose ArbCom prohibited you from visiting the South Pole for an indefinite period. You appeal on principle that you should be able to visit the South Pole because you are a free man just like everyone else. After a dozen appeals they finally say you can visit the South Pole next year if you are willing to wait that long. Who cares? Just wait the year for the meaningless restriction to expire, and you will not visit the South Pole anyway.

I think it's particularly silly that some arbitrators suggest that if the restriction was lifted I could just go talk to Phil Sandifer if I wanted, so there's some kind of "risk" involved. Leaving aside the fact that I want nothing to do with him, there would still be an informal, unspoken restriction there--I can't imagine that I would dare talk to him even if we crossed paths and had some kind of editorial reason to communicate (which has so far never happened, since he writes about comic books and Doctor Who, and I know nothing about either topic). The fact is, keeping this restriction in place is all about placating Phil's ego and punishing me for various differences of opinion.

[taiwopanfob]

I actually advised an arbitrator tonight that when Everyking makes his inevitable appeal, he should just be ignored, and the restriction be left to expire in a year as stated*.

Ha!

This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction.

One presumes that an ignored appeal is a failed appeal. Maybe we can get a quorum of arbitraryators to rule on that fine piece of wikilaw? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[One]

One presumes that an ignored appeal is a failed appeal. Maybe we can get a quorum of arbitraryators to rule on that fine piece of wikilaw? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

[taiwopanfob]

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

Even in the presence of Oversight, I'm not so sure if it is a good idea for the ArbCom to be playing mind games like that. If the last sentence of the restriction is to be, in effect, vacated, then why not just go in there and remove it?

[No one of consequence]

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

Even in the presence of Oversight, I'm not so sure if it is a good idea for the ArbCom to be playing mind games like that. If the last sentence of the restriction is to be, in effect, vacated, then why not just go in there and remove it?

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire. I suspect he will appeal at least once more in 2009, and then again in 2010 as soon as the new Arbitrators are seated. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they stop playing the game by Everyking's rules, and in fact stop playing the game at all. If they will not lift the ban immediately (which was my argument on the request for amendment page) then the next best thing to do is to let the year expire and ignore any posturings or filings in the mean time. One of the worst things they could do would be to respond to his next appeal with a formal vote to vacate the "stop pestering us" clause of the most recent motion.

But that is only my opinion.

This post has been edited by No one of consequence:

[One]

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire.

That's the impression I get as well. Hopefully, we will have adopted 12(b)(6) by that time.

This post has been edited by One:

[taiwopanfob]

That's the impression I get as well. Hopefully, we will have adopted 12(b)(6) by that time.

You could just save a pile of time and import the entire FRCP: Wikipedia could become a training ground for lawyers, everywhere! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

[No one of consequence]

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire.

That's the impression I get as well. Hopefully, we will have adopted 12(b)(6) by that time.

Link added for non-lawyers.

[One]

GBG won't like that link at all. How about this one instead?

[Random832]

GBG won't like that link at all. How about this one instead?

How about we let that be the link for lawyers, and leave the other one as the link for non-lawyers?

[Kelly Martin]

That's the impression I get as well. Hopefully, we will have adopted 12(b)(6) by that time.

Except then you'd have to dismiss nearly all cases, as the ArbCom is clearly incapable of granting relief for just about every complaint that comes before it.

[Shalom]

GBG won't like that link at all. How about this one instead?

If GBG doesn't like a link, SCREW HIM. Or tell him to seek advice from folks outside the community if he wants a better link!

[everyking]

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

Even in the presence of Oversight, I'm not so sure if it is a good idea for the ArbCom to be playing mind games like that. If the last sentence of the restriction is to be, in effect, vacated, then why not just go in there and remove it?

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire. I suspect he will appeal at least once more in 2009, and then again in 2010 as soon as the new Arbitrators are seated. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they stop playing the game by Everyking's rules, and in fact stop playing the game at all. If they will not lift the ban immediately (which was my argument on the request for amendment page) then the next best thing to do is to let the year expire and ignore any posturings or filings in the mean time. One of the worst things they could do would be to respond to his next appeal with a formal vote to vacate the "stop pestering us" clause of the most recent motion.

But that is only my opinion.

I won't appeal again in 2009. The remaining timespan is too short and the current ArbCom has demonstrated its hopelessness beyond all doubt. Most likely I will appeal in January, although possibly I might let it expire...it would be very tempting to appeal just one day before the restriction is set to expire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Shalom]

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

Even in the presence of Oversight, I'm not so sure if it is a good idea for the ArbCom to be playing mind games like that. If the last sentence of the restriction is to be, in effect, vacated, then why not just go in there and remove it?

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire. I suspect he will appeal at least once more in 2009, and then again in 2010 as soon as the new Arbitrators are seated. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they stop playing the game by Everyking's rules, and in fact stop playing the game at all. If they will not lift the ban immediately (which was my argument on the request for amendment page) then the next best thing to do is to let the year expire and ignore any posturings or filings in the mean time. One of the worst things they could do would be to respond to his next appeal with a formal vote to vacate the "stop pestering us" clause of the most recent motion.

But that is only my opinion.

I won't appeal again in 2009. The remaining timespan is too short and the current ArbCom has demonstrated its hopelessness beyond all doubt. Most likely I will appeal in January, although possibly I might let it expire...it would be very tempting to appeal just one day before the restriction is set to expire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

How about you run for ArbCom so that you can unrestrict yourself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

[Emperor]

What's this 25 page thread about?

Everyking is prohibited from interacting with Phil Sandifer, as the final remaining sanction in a 4 year old Arbitration case. The prohibition was indefinite, with no expiry date. Everyking has filed up to 15 (depending on how one counts) appeals and requests for clarification. He says it's a matter of principle, and that he has no intention of interacting with Phil. At least some on Arbcom seem to be worried that his zeal in pursuing relief belies other, hidden motives. This week, Arbcom voted down a motion to lift the ban, but approved a motion that the ban will expire in one year, as long as Everyking stops pestering them about it.

Thank you for the summary.

[Milton Roe]

No, he's suggesting that for his sake (and theirs), arbitrators pretend like his January appeal never happens.

Even in the presence of Oversight, I'm not so sure if it is a good idea for the ArbCom to be playing mind games like that. If the last sentence of the restriction is to be, in effect, vacated, then why not just go in there and remove it?

It was recently suggested to me that Everyking will continue to appeal, even after the ban expires, because he will want the ban formally lifted or vacated, and not simply to expire. I suspect he will appeal at least once more in 2009, and then again in 2010 as soon as the new Arbitrators are seated. My suggestion to Arbcom is that they stop playing the game by Everyking's rules, and in fact stop playing the game at all. If they will not lift the ban immediately (which was my argument on the request for amendment page) then the next best thing to do is to let the year expire and ignore any posturings or filings in the mean time. One of the worst things they could do would be to respond to his next appeal with a formal vote to vacate the "stop pestering us" clause of the most recent motion.

But that is only my opinion.

I won't appeal again in 2009. The remaining timespan is too short and the current ArbCom has demonstrated its hopelessness beyond all doubt. Most likely I will appeal in January, although possibly I might let it expire...it would be very tempting to appeal just one day before the restriction is set to expire. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Then your punishment shall be extended e years, varlet.* And feel lucky it's not ie years.





* A word related to valet. DYK? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)

[A Horse With No Name]

If GBG doesn't like a link, SCREW HIM.

Not literally, I hope. And not me -- after that wacky evening with Kenneth Pinyan, I don't do that sort of stuff anymore. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

[Milton Roe]

If GBG doesn't like a link, SCREW HIM.

Not literally, I hope. And not me -- after that wacky evening with Kenneth Pinyan, I don't do that sort of stuff anymore. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Wouldn't that be embarrassing as hell?

(IMG:http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Pinyantombstone.jpg)

[The Joy]

If GBG doesn't like a link, SCREW HIM.

Not literally, I hope. And not me -- after that wacky evening with Kenneth Pinyan, I don't do that sort of stuff anymore. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

Don't give Coren any ideas. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[everyking]

So apparently none of the arbitrators, who are of course much wiser and more experienced than me, are willing to give me the advice I need to become a better editor, even after I specifically asked for some. What is the purpose of this year-long wait? Aren't I supposed to be changing something about my conduct during that period, so that when August 2010 arrives it will be safe to release me into the wild? It seems unreasonable to tell me I must change my conduct and then ignore my request for some helpful advice to that end.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[everyking]

How about you run for ArbCom so that you can unrestrict yourself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't run because I'm not an admin anymore--I feel that only people who have already been entrusted with administrative powers by the community are worth being considered by the community for higher responsibilities. If I regained my adminship, I would seriously consider running. But needless to say, it would be irrelevant to my own case, because I couldn't and wouldn't vote on a matter in which I was involved.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[JohnA]

So apparently none of the arbitrators, who are of course much wiser and more experienced than me, are willing to give me the advice I need to become a better editor, even after I specifically asked for some. What is the purpose of this year-long wait? Aren't I supposed to be changing something about my conduct during that period, so that when August 2010 arrives it will be safe to release me into the wild? It seems unreasonable to tell me I must change my conduct and then ignore my request for some helpful advice to that end.

Do you actually intend to grow old waiting for Wikipedia to treat you like a human being? You have more patience than Job, or possibly you like being pummelled by nobodies for the right to expend vast amounts of time writing articles in the sand of a storm beach.

Color me baffled.

[everyking]

Do you actually intend to grow old waiting for Wikipedia to treat you like a human being?

Yes--but fortunately, I can multi-task! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[GlassBeadGame]

How about you run for ArbCom so that you can unrestrict yourself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't run because I'm not an admin anymore--I feel that only people who have already been entrusted with administrative powers by the community are worth being considered by the community for higher responsibilities. If I regained my adminship, I would seriously consider running. But needless to say, it would be irrelevant to my own case, because I couldn't and wouldn't vote on a matter in which I was involved.

You understand they don't trust you with a prize they routinely give to losers in high school, right? Best not to get to far lost in your grand plans.

[everyking]

How about you run for ArbCom so that you can unrestrict yourself? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

I don't run because I'm not an admin anymore--I feel that only people who have already been entrusted with administrative powers by the community are worth being considered by the community for higher responsibilities. If I regained my adminship, I would seriously consider running. But needless to say, it would be irrelevant to my own case, because I couldn't and wouldn't vote on a matter in which I was involved.

You understand they don't trust you with a prize they routinely give to losers in high school, right? Best not to get to far lost in your grand plans.

Tell you what--if you vote for me and I get elected to the ArbCom, I'll propose the creation of a new "GlassBeadGame barnstar" in your honor. Admittedly I might need to run it by the Advisory Council first.

[Rhindle]

Everyking: The Nelson Mandela of wikipedia.

[The Joy]

I really don't understand this restriction. It's been years since Everyking did anything to Phil Sandifer/Snowspinner and, to my knowledge, he has obeyed the restriction to the letter since its inception.

The purpose of any restriction or sanction on Wikipedia is to stop damage to the encyclopedia. Everyking and Phil do not even edit the same subjects. Phil deals with Doctor Who and comics, while Everyking seems to focus on African politics. The two are unlikely to meet in article space. Everyking has stated he is not going to deal with Phil. Hence, the restriction is moot and unnecessary. It's like these silly laws in the US that say one should not put an alligator in one's freezer. Why would anyone put an alligator in their freezer and why would Everyking pick a fight with Phil... again?

One tactic I've seen over and over again on Wikipedia is utilizing rules as a means of vengeance. Everyking cannot discuss Phil, but what if Phil does something that affects Everyking? What if Phil protects the Gabonese 2009 election article with the reason of stopping vandalism, when it is apparent it is an act of revenge to hurt Everyking? Phil would know that Everyking could not discuss or contest the action without suffering sanctions. What if Everyking does run for administrator in 2009/2010 before the restriction expires and Phil trashes his RFA? Even dirtier, what if Phil's allies try to make Everyking angry and make him mention Phil so that they can run to Arbitration Enforcement to sanction him? It has been done (it's happened with Giano and his civility restriction in the past) and ArbCom does not think of these kind of things going on, but they happen.

Why can't Everyking have the right to discuss Phil or talk to Phil in a collegial, constructive manner as is expected of all Wikipedians? Phil is an administrator and administrative actions should always be under scrutiny by community members (admin and non-admin alike) to ensure that no policy or ethical violations have occurred. If Phil does something wrong and Everyking notices it and is able to provide clear evidence of wrongdoing, why deny him that ability? Phil's actions as a editor should also be under the scrutiny of the community and, as with his administrative actions, Everyking should have the ability to provide evidence of any of Phil's wrongdoing.

Just vacate the restriction, remind Everyking that Wikipedia is a positive happy place with pink unicorns and requires people to talk nicely to each other, and to follow the No Personal Attacks policy to whatever letter it happens to be at the time. If he has to talk with/about Phil, talk about things in a collegial manner, provide evidence if necessary, and focus on the behavior/actions and not Phil being a complete jerk. While Phil may have been judged as the aggrieved victim at the time, he should be strongly encouraged to be collegial with Everyking and let the past be the past.

Can anyone point me to where Everyking and Phil fought and led to this restriction in the first place?

[Moulton]

One tactic I've seen over and over again on Wikipedia is utilizing rules as a means of vengeance.

Yes, that's the principle dynamic in Wikipedia Wars, which is modeled after Mafia Wars on Facebook (or is it the other way around?). In any event, the fundamental gesture of any dramatic encounter is reaction, of which revenge is the sweetest.

Then again, the sweet has a tendency to turn sour or bitter in the long run.

[everyking]

I've repeatedly asked NYB to explain his position here, but he says he's worried about my reputation being damaged, as if I'm not already under a restraining order. So I'll do it for him. In short, he says I ought to remain restricted because in 2006 I made what he describes as a harassing and threatening comment about Phil here on WR, in connection with Phil's big "police harassment" incident. He thereby echoes Phil and Raul's contention that I masterminded or at least incited the incident. Obviously these people think I have tremendous influence here at WR, such that I can just make some silly off-hand comment and people will take it seriously and act on it: will no one rid me of this turbulent administrator? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Moulton]

Pretty much everyone involved in Wikipedia runs a high risk of having their reputation damaged. After all, that's the main sport of the project — to bring others into disrepute. Is it any wonder that Jimbo's biggest fear is having the project itself brought into disrepute?

[everyking]

No edits from Phil since 9 August. Only six total edits in August. Let's say Phil has decided to abandon modern civilization to live in the forest--how long would the ArbCom wait in that case before lifting this sanction? Surely it would agree that the sanction should not remain in place if Phil stops editing for an extended period of time, wouldn't it?

[Kelly Martin]

No edits from Phil since 9 August. Only six total edits in August. Let's say Phil has decided to abandon modern civilization to live in the forest--how long would the ArbCom wait in that case before lifting this sanction? Surely it would agree that the sanction should not remain in place if Phil stops editing for an extended period of time, wouldn't it?

If he doesn't edit before September 9th, you should file a motion to modify based on new evidence.

[A Horse With No Name]

No edits from Phil since 9 August. Only six total edits in August. Let's say Phil has decided to abandon modern civilization to live in the forest--how long would the ArbCom wait in that case before lifting this sanction? Surely it would agree that the sanction should not remain in place if Phil stops editing for an extended period of time, wouldn't it?

How about getting Protonk in on this? He loves a good smackdown. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

Besides, everyone knows that September 9th is the end of the world (9/9/9, ya know).

[dogbiscuit]

Besides, everyone knows that September 9th is the end of the world (9/9/9, ya know).

Hell Freezes Over?

[everyking]

No edits from Phil since 9 August. Only six total edits in August. Let's say Phil has decided to abandon modern civilization to live in the forest--how long would the ArbCom wait in that case before lifting this sanction? Surely it would agree that the sanction should not remain in place if Phil stops editing for an extended period of time, wouldn't it?

If he doesn't edit before September 9th, you should file a motion to modify based on new evidence.

Based on what we know of the ArbCom's attitude toward appeals, I'm guessing that another appeal in so short a timeframe would backfire and lead to the imposition of even tougher restrictions.

[Kelly Martin]

Based on what we know of the ArbCom's attitude toward appeals, I'm guessing that another appeal in so short a timeframe would backfire and lead to the imposition of even tougher restrictions.

Yes, but I thought that was what you wanted.

[Somey]

He thereby echoes Phil and Raul's contention that I masterminded or at least incited the incident. Obviously these people think I have tremendous influence here at WR, such that I can just make some silly off-hand comment and people will take it seriously and act on it: will no one rid me of this turbulent administrator? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

First and foremost, you don't need "tremendous influence here at WR" to have inspired someone who was reading the site (but wasn't/isn't necessarily a member) to have contacted the campus police at the school Sandifer is/was attending, under those circumstances. It was a public thread, anyone could have read it and done that. Having said that, you do have some influence, I suppose, just from having been with us for so long.

Mainly, though, are you really saying that was a "silly off-hand comment"? Because when someone writes a disturbing first-person account of a psychopathic killer, and only provides the barest of diclaimers that it's fiction, and happens to live in or near a university campus where several coeds had been murdered by a serial killer only a few years before... I'd say it was a fairly responsible suggestion. Sandifer's only real defense should have been that you, and by extension those reading the post, should have known that Sandifer would never actually go out and kill people for sport. But the fact is, none of us really know that for a fact, do we? Any one of us - you, me, Sandifer, Raul, anyone on Wikipedia - could be horrific hiding secrets like that, and the rest of us wouldn't be any the wiser, would we?

Only the rest of us didn't write that story and post it on a public website - Sandifer is the only one among us that I know of who did that. So again, I'd still say you did the right thing, and have nothing to be ashamed of.

[CharlotteWebb]

Everyking: The Nelson Mandela of wikipedia.

I thought Rootology held that title.

[Cedric]

No edits from Phil since 9 August. Only six total edits in August. Let's say Phil has decided to abandon modern civilization to live in the forest--how long would the ArbCom wait in that case before lifting this sanction? Surely it would agree that the sanction should not remain in place if Phil stops editing for an extended period of time, wouldn't it?

Why do you even bother to pose such hypotheticals? In event the arbs were willing to even consider actual evidence, they would probably insist on a death certificate.

[everyking]

Why do you even bother to pose such hypotheticals? In event the arbs were willing to even consider actual evidence, they would probably insist on a death certificate.

I thought my Thoreau-style hypothetical was pretty charitable. But maybe the police busted him for all those pills he's got in his apartment, the ones he wouldn't let them inspect during their last visit? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Milton Roe]

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that's terrible. Probably ED should be taken to court for libel. Oh, wups-- there's section 230 of the CDA. Dang. You know, I'm thinking: WP might want to be careful that it also doesn't libel people, too, if it's THAT easy to do and get away with it. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

And shame on you, Everyking, for participating in a THREAD on WR which caused creation by somebody of a libelous page on ED {{cite}}. Yes, it did. Clearly cause-and-effect. Fruit of the poisoned thread. Res ipsa whatever.

And all this is maybe somehow connected with somebody somewhere phoning the police with a tip that Phil is a murderer. That could have had something to do with Everyking, too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) I guess we'll never know! Prove it doesn't! Phil mentions it in the very same post, so that's a connection.

I'm sure glad there are legal people on ArbCom. Otherwise you never know what kind of Accusational Excesses would be tolerated. NYB, be proud.

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

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

There you have it. Every few months Phil would have to worry that the "much-needed protection" (a mere "basic level") against Everyking Wikistalking him, had ended, and nobody would even have informed him! So he wouldn't even know. And as for why it's "much needed," see the stuff above about the police. And the same paragraph stuff about the WR thread. Which (almost certainly) resulted in the ED article, which resulted in the bad Google hits to this day on Phil. And this could happen to YOUR children, too. Bang, a CDA sec 230 protected site says something bad about you, your name goes to the top of google's shit list, and there's NOTHING you can do.

So be afraid. Be very afraid. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) The problem, clearly....... is EVERYKING. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

[Cedric]

And all this is maybe somehow connected with somebody somewhere phoning the police with a tip that Phil is a murderer. That could have had something to do with Everyking, too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) I guess we'll never know! Prove it doesn't! Phil mentions it in the very same post, so that's a connection.

Silly Uncle Milty! Simply everyone knows Everyking had nothing to do with that phone tip! Gaaah! EK is the guy that started World War II. He also caused Hurricane Katrina with the assistance of The Elders of Zion, The Trilateral Commission and George Soros.

Silly Uncle Milty! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Kato]

So be afraid. Be very afraid. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) The problem, clearly....... is EVERYKING. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/fear.gif)

That was the hysteria of the time. In May 2006, some Wikipedio wrote:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...May/047775.html

The Foundation should take one of these trolls (it doesn't matter which one but the guy who caused Snowspinner his police problems would be an excellent choice if he can be identified) and use the legal system and/or the press to crucify him. The value of a troll's head on a pike as a deterrent to other trolls would be worth the cost and difficulty.

The fact is that Everyking was almost certainly not responsible for any aspect of the Snowspinner incident, and there is no evidence that anyone here was responsible - though it is conceivable that it was one of the early site "crazies" who have long since moved on. Another fact is that it was apparently the college authorities who deemed the thing worthy of external examination - meaning that though the complaint was obnoxious, it had enough legitimacy to be taken seriously by credible independent parties. The Wikipediot above, Gamaliel, demanding that the Foundation "use the legal system to crucify him" is still an administrator today, having faced none of the rough justice Everyking has had to put up with.

The ongoing antics by Arbcom are an embarrassment, and in this thread Everyking has shown current members of Arbcom to be of hopelessly poor judgment.

Just examine this in the cold light of day: The idiocy of Snowspinner in 2005-6 when he declared himself "Prosecutor General", and the hysteria of comments such as the above. And yet Arbcom think that EK still has to work out some issues? Seriously...

[GlassBeadGame]

The idea that Sandifer was killing homeless people was ridiculous. Had it been true Shankbone would have photographed the killings and posted them to Commons.

[everyking]

My restraining order has now at long last expired, five years after it was imposed. For five years, the prospect of me saying something about Phil Sandifer's misuse of admin powers was frightening enough to make arbitrators lose control of their bowels. Who knows what will happen now that I am free to make snide commentary about Wikipedia's most special former editor (he hasn't really been active for a few years, and he's made no edits at all in the last three months--he was last seen arguing about an Insane Clown Posse song, true to form)? Truly, it is as though the gates of hell have been opened. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

In light of Phil's wiki-retirement, anyone hoping for new opportunities to poke fun at Wikipedia's own version of Comic Book Guy will just have to follow him on Twitter. Seems he's been through a divorce recently. I suppose eventually she realized his personality is even uglier than his teeth? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) Yes, yes, I know, that's not fair...I mean, maybe he's had some dental work done recently? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

[Somey]

In light of Phil's wiki-retirement, anyone hoping for new opportunities to poke fun at Wikipedia's own version of Comic Book Guy will just have to follow him on Twitter. Seems he's been through a divorce recently. I suppose eventually she realized his personality is even uglier than his teeth? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) Yes, yes, I know, that's not fair...I mean, maybe he's had some dental work done recently?

The goatee isn't really doing much for him, I'm sorry to say.

Of course, you wouldn't expect someone who would "live tweet" his own divorce proceedings to care too much about appearances...

[EricBarbour]

Of course, you wouldn't expect someone who would "live tweet" his own divorce proceedings to care too much about appearances...

# Solved recessional problem via vigorous walking and bathroom stop to avoid elevator. Now to kill six hours in Gainesville and fly home. 7:42 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Problem solved. Divorced now. 7:40 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# We missed the paperwork. Delay for that. Judge says we are to be executed. Guess we can fail. 7:39 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Is your marriage irretrievably broken? If she says so. 7:38 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# In any case, we seem to be up. 7:36 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Advantage of lawyers appears to be that ensuing crowd eases walk of depression and failure. 7:35 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# I wonder if I should have studied. Can I fail my divorce? 7:34 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# @bzarcher Perhaps the urinal cakes improve the bouquet. 7:33 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific in reply to bzarcher

# There was a no-show. The story implied by that small tidbit of knowledge us kinda sweet. 7:31 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Someone discussing their upcoming vacation to Jersey. From Florida. My life suddenly seems better. 7:28 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Sprite traitor was apparently emotional support for boil lady's ex husband. They never spoke. I conclude he was screwing boil lady. 7:27 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Boil lady was fast. Next round has lawyers. I am going to die here. 7:26 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Boil lady has gone in. Took opportunity to move away from Sprite traitor. He is now closer to ex than me. I feel safer. 7:25 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# @bzarcher So did I. But he has turned traitor. Never trust a divorcee. 7:22 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific in reply to bzarcher

# Sprite man is back. Now he has a Pepsi. His lack of fidelity is clearly why he is getting divorced. 7:21 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# Sprite killer has departed. He was my buffer between me and ex-wife. I find I miss him. 7:18 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

# There's really no way to avoid walking in sync. A forced recessional. A nice court would put a bathroom right near the courtroom for this. 7:18 AM Aug 11th via Twitterrific

Incredible. What a fucking asshole.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Wikipedia's own version of Comic Book Guy

Comic Book Guy (T-H-L-K-D):
His store is his sanctuary, where he holds some level of self-esteem, imperiously lording over pre-teen kids, like Bart Simpson and Milhouse Van Houten, using a heavily sarcastic tone and often banning certain customers for minor infractions.

[everyking]

Shortly after I posted the above, Phil Sandifer made his first edit in over three months. Not to add content--perish the thought!--but to do something far more important: argue about TV show trivia.

To judge by the extraordinary measures taken to protect him from criticism, Phil Sandifer is (or was) considered by the ArbCom to be the most valuable editor in Wikipedia history. Although his entire history on the project consists essentially of bickering over trivia and indulging in exasperating litigation, the ArbCom has done everything in its power to ensure that Wikipedia is a warm and comfortable place for Phil Sandifer, where he can badger others without fear of consequence. It's sort of like spraying the humans with pesticide to make them leave the termites alone.

[Somey]

To judge by the extraordinary measures taken to protect him from criticism, Phil Sandifer is (or was) considered by the ArbCom to be the most valuable editor in Wikipedia history. Although his entire history on the project consists essentially of bickering over trivia and indulging in exasperating litigation, the ArbCom has done everything in its power to ensure that Wikipedia is a warm and comfortable place for Phil Sandifer, where he can badger others without fear of consequence. It's sort of like spraying the humans with pesticide to make them leave the termites alone.

Well then, I'd just like to apologize on behalf of all of Wikipedia for the way you were treated and for the gross miscarriage of justice that you suffered at Wikipedia's hands.

Nevertheless, I'm compelled to point out that Joss Whedon's involvement in just one episode of Glee really isn't enough to justify his inclusion on the series' list of regular writers.

[everyking]

Nevertheless, I'm compelled to point out that Joss Whedon's involvement in just one episode of Glee really isn't enough to justify his inclusion on the series' list of regular writers.

I wasn't suggesting he was wrong about the specific point in question. I don't know, and don't care.

[Moulton]

How can you not care about Joss Whedon?

That's just wrong.

[TungstenCarbide]

How can you not care about Joss Whedon?

That's just wrong.

Well Duh! he's a red head.

[Moulton]

Once more, with feeling...

How can you not care about Joss Whedon?

That's just wrong.

Well Duh! he's a red head.

Is that right? I had no idea.

Let's check that out...

After college, Whedon drifted out to Los Angeles. An eccentric wannabe auteur with bright red hair down to his waist, he fiddled with weird projects like a musical parody of the Oliver North hearings; despite his father's industry connections, he had disastrous pitch meetings. Then he got his big break: a staff writer's job on "Roseanne." By the time he left, he had a solid writer's rep.

The messy anteroom to Whedon's office at Mutant Enemy, his Los Angeles production company, is filled with "Buffy" memorabilia and piles of videotapes. On the walls hang glossy framed posters: "The Matrix," "Written on the Wind," a pen-and-ink drawing of Mickey Mouse hanging by a noose. Whedon hands me a snapshot of a fellow redhead with a wicked grin; it's his wife, Kai Cole. "The funniest woman I've ever met," he says. On their honeymoon, Whedon scribbled the names of "Buffy" characters in a notepad. And it was on a long-overdue London vacation with Kai that Whedon found the inspiration for "Firefly."

Well, there you have it, folks. Joss Whedon is a red-headed creative writer who is married to another red-head (who is the funniest woman he's ever met), and he does musical parodies, to boot.

Not me, though. I do musical parodies to get booted.

[Cla68]

Once more, with feeling...

How can you not care about Joss Whedon?

That's just wrong.

Well Duh! he's a red head.

Is that right? I had no idea.

Let's check that out...

After college, Whedon drifted out to Los Angeles. An eccentric wannabe auteur with bright red hair down to his waist, he fiddled with weird projects like a musical parody of the Oliver North hearings; despite his father's industry connections, he had disastrous pitch meetings. Then he got his big break: a staff writer's job on "Roseanne." By the time he left, he had a solid writer's rep.

The messy anteroom to Whedon's office at Mutant Enemy, his Los Angeles production company, is filled with "Buffy" memorabilia and piles of videotapes. On the walls hang glossy framed posters: "The Matrix," "Written on the Wind," a pen-and-ink drawing of Mickey Mouse hanging by a noose. Whedon hands me a snapshot of a fellow redhead with a wicked grin; it's his wife, Kai Cole. "The funniest woman I've ever met," he says. On their honeymoon, Whedon scribbled the names of "Buffy" characters in a notepad. And it was on a long-overdue London vacation with Kai that Whedon found the inspiration for "Firefly."

Well, there you have it, folks. Joss Whedon is a red-headed creative writer who is married to another red-head (who is the funniest woman he's ever met), and he does musical parodies, to boot.

Not me, though. I do musical parodies to get booted.

If he wrote Firefly, then he's a candidate for the prestigious descriptor of "stone cold genius" as that was one of the most original and best-written, albeit uneven, shows I've ever seen. He needs to watch out, however, about dissing Mickey Mouse. Mickey and his company don't have much of a sense of humor, from what I've heard, when it comes to perceived persecution. As far as Snowspinner goes, who knows, perhaps someday he might actually significantly improve an article in Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Doc glasgow]

Everyking, your constant self-obsessed snivelling and whinging about the irrelevant trivial of your arbcom restrictions - going on as if they were some kind significant legal impediment - always made you look pathetic.

Gloating, and attacking Sandifer's divorce, as if you'd just obtained some legal vindication is even more pathetic.

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

I mean, in the grand scale (or even in a microscopically small one) who the f*** cares what a bunkc of people called Arbcom thinks of you, or what restriction your account is under on some website you happen to be obsessed with?

Have you any idea how moronic all this makes you look?

[GlassBeadGame]

Everyking, your constant self-obsessed snivelling and whinging about the irrelevant trivial of your arbcom restrictions - going on as if they were some kind significant legal impediment - always made you look pathetic.

Gloating, and attacking Sandifer's divorce, as if you'd just obtained some legal vindication is even more pathetic.

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

I mean, in the grand scale (or even in a microscopically small one) who the f*** cares what a bunkc of people called Arbcom thinks of you, or what restriction your account is under on some website you happen to be obsessed with?

Have you any idea how moronic all this makes you look?

Couldn't have said it better even if I did care enough to bother.

[Milton Roe]

If he wrote Firefly, then he's a candidate for the prestigious descriptor of "stone cold genius" as that was one of the most original and best-written, albeit uneven, shows I've ever seen.

Have to agree. Naturally, it got cancelled.

Burn my land, boil my sea;
You can't make real good TV.... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

The Serenity movie, which uses some season #2 canceled stock and closes out some story lines, is availble on Netflix.

Damn, considering this and the Sarah Connors chronicals, I think the universe has it in for Summer Glau. Perhaps it's just a penalty for her good taste in SF, which flies above the intelligence level of the average TV audience.

Well, back to my Dexter. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[everyking]

Gloating, and attacking Sandifer's divorce, as if you'd just obtained some legal vindication is even more pathetic.

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia, and in return for that I expect a measure of respect from the people in charge--to at least not be subjected to a demented kangaroo court, convicted on insane allegations, and have my on-site reputation smeared for five years. In other words, I expect to be accorded at least enough respect to be left alone to improve the encyclopedia in peace. If you think that's silly or pathetic, you must not have much regard for humans in general, because it's a typical human reaction.

As far as Phil Sandifer goes, well, he's a jerk of monumental proportions. Are you suggesting my mockery was undeserved? He's a terrible editor, he has terrible teeth, and evidently he was a terrible husband. My willingness to refrain from uttering those truths in a derisive and mocking tone is contingent on his ability to behave like a marginally decent and reasonable person.

[InkBlot]

If he wrote Firefly, then he's a candidate for the prestigious descriptor of "stone cold genius" as that was one of the most original and best-written, albeit uneven, shows I've ever seen. He needs to watch out, however, about dissing Mickey Mouse. Mickey and his company don't have much of a sense of humor, from what I've heard, when it comes to perceived persecution. As far as Snowspinner goes, who knows, perhaps someday he might actually significantly improve an article in Wikipedia.

For the "uneven" part, I recommend finding the box set of the show. The original broadcasts were wildly out of order (many felt Fox had it in for Whedon back then), which led to a very disjointed run. Watching them on DVD lets you see them in order, plus three episodes which never made it to air.

[Somey]

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia, and in return for that I expect a measure of respect from the people in charge--to at least not be subjected to a demented kangaroo court, convicted on insane allegations, and have my on-site reputation smeared for five years. In other words, I expect to be accorded at least enough respect to be left alone to improve the encyclopedia in peace.

Despite your many years of training here, young padawan, I fear you have learned nothing. No seat on the Jedi Council for you!

Are you suggesting my mockery was undeserved?

Can something be deserved and yet still be gratuitous? I would think so, but I suppose it's an arguable point.

[Doc glasgow]

Gloating, and attacking Sandifer's divorce, as if you'd just obtained some legal vindication is even more pathetic.

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia, and in return for that I expect a measure of respect from the people in charge--to at least not be subjected to a demented kangaroo court, convicted on insane allegations, and have my on-site reputation smeared for five years. In other words, I expect to be accorded at least enough respect to be left alone to improve the encyclopedia in peace. If you think that's silly or pathetic, you must not have much regard for humans in general, because it's a typical human reaction.

No, most human beings don't obsess for five years because some mods on a website give them a hard time. And most people are self-aware enough to realise that if they do so obsess, it is incredibly likely that no one else will give a monkey's arse.

Being libelled on an encyclopedia, or having to watch an unwanted biography for edits from spiteful teenagers, is good reason for complaint and bitterness. That a bunch of folk in an online club decide they don't want to play with User:Everyking, in quite the way he'd like to play is unbelievably trivial. It's on a level of a five year old screaming the world down because her younger sister called her "poopface". Her upset is, of course, "a typical human reaction" - that doesn't make it any the less risable.

As far as Phil Sandifer goes, well, he's a jerk of monumental proportions. Are you suggesting my mockery was undeserved? He's a terrible editor, he has terrible teeth, and evidently he was a terrible husband. My willingness to refrain from uttering those truths in a derisive and mocking tone is contingent on his ability to behave like a marginally decent and reasonable person.

Oh dear, I think you are going to have a miserable life.

[Milton Roe]

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia, and in return for that I expect a measure of respect from the people in charge--to at least not be subjected to a demented kangaroo court, convicted on insane allegations, and have my on-site reputation smeared for five years. In other words, I expect to be accorded at least enough respect to be left alone to improve the encyclopedia in peace.

Despite your many years of training here, young padawan, I fear you have learned nothing. No seat on the Jedi Council for you!

Now, young Everyking, German/Yiddish sentence structure must you learn. Phil Sandifer's teeth must you view. And back to slaving away at somebody else's virtual reality website must you go. Pity for you we have.

[Jon Awbrey]

Many people confuse wishes and expectations.

Expectations, when rational, are based on experience.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[everyking]

No, most human beings don't obsess for five years because some mods on a website give them a hard time. And most people are self-aware enough to realise that if they do so obsess, it is incredibly likely that no one else will give a monkey's arse.

Being libelled on an encyclopedia, or having to watch an unwanted biography for edits from spiteful teenagers, is good reason for complaint and bitterness. That a bunch of folk in an online club decide they don't want to play with User:Everyking, in quite the way he'd like to play is unbelievably trivial. It's on a level of a five year old screaming the world down because her younger sister called her "poopface". Her upset is, of course, "a typical human reaction" - that doesn't make it any the less risable.

I've decided that the proportionately appropriate reaction to your view that I blow things out of proportion is to ignore your view altogether. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[trenton]

Oh dear, I think you are going to have a miserable life.

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia

[Emperor]

I've devoted a fairly large chunk of my life to Wikipedia, and in return for that I expect a measure of respect from the people in charge--to at least not be subjected to a demented kangaroo court, convicted on insane allegations, and have my on-site reputation smeared for five years.

Encyc actually has a Kangaroo Court, though we haven't had a good opportunity to use it yet. I was thinking maybe I could appoint a few colorful characters as judges and then the regular users could devote their lives to earning their respect.

[EricBarbour]

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

Couldn't have said it better even if I did care enough to bother.

Seconded.

[Shalom]

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

Couldn't have said it better even if I did care enough to bother.

Seconded.

I allowed my wiki-reputation to matter to me too. The difference is: once I lost the battle, I quit and left the wicked-pedians behind. I have no patience for losers.

If people don't believe things I write, or don't respect the value of the creative and maintenance work that I contributed, then my best response is to withdraw and not come back. I tried some other options (coming back on a different username, telling Majorly what a hypocrite he is, etc.) but I'm most satisfied leaving altogether. I think the losers who hate me will like that idea too. I'm willing to let them win.

Everyking, we've been down this road before, and I know your commitment to Wikipedia is inviolable. Despite this, at some point you have to make an ultimatum and say if ArbCom doesn't lift the restrictions you will quit editing. Others might laugh at such a tactic, but I would respect it.

Edit: I didn't read far back enough. But you still shouldn't edit Wikipedia. It's an ever-expanding dump of useless junk.

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[Cla68]

If he wrote Firefly, then he's a candidate for the prestigious descriptor of "stone cold genius" as that was one of the most original and best-written, albeit uneven, shows I've ever seen. He needs to watch out, however, about dissing Mickey Mouse. Mickey and his company don't have much of a sense of humor, from what I've heard, when it comes to perceived persecution. As far as Snowspinner goes, who knows, perhaps someday he might actually significantly improve an article in Wikipedia.

For the "uneven" part, I recommend finding the box set of the show. The original broadcasts were wildly out of order (many felt Fox had it in for Whedon back then), which led to a very disjointed run. Watching them on DVD lets you see them in order, plus three episodes which never made it to air.

I did rent the entire series from NetFlix and watched them all in the correct order, along with Serenity. What I mean by "uneven" is that some of the episodes were noticeably not written as well as some of the others, which I don't mean as a condemnation of the show as a whole.

Back to the subject, Everyking, I agree that you shouldn't put much value in your status as an editor in Wikipedia. It isn't worth it. Someone could flick a switch tomorrow and the whole WP shebang could disappear and never come back. I've taken some conflicts in Wikipedia somewhat personally, but I hope that I've been able to keep some reasonable perspective on it all. I won't rehash all the arguments on why WP, or some of the jerks that inhabit it, shouldn't matter that much to you, because they have been repeated in this forum over and over already. Just keep reminding yourself, "It's just a website and a past time."

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[The Joy]

Yes, the Arbitration Committee made a terrible mistake in restricting Everyking.

They should have banned him.

It's one thing to attack Sandifer's online behavior and his "real world" behavior if it crosses over into his activities on Wikipedia, but digging into him and bringing attention to his divorce goes beyond the pale. Yes, we do focus on personalities here (perhaps too often), but we do try to focus on how the personality caused problems on Wikipedia. These sort of attacks go beyond Wikipedia criticism. How does Phil Sandifer's divorce explain his online behavior and his actions on Wikipedia?

To paraphrase Moulton, "Everyking, do you subscribe to the Hammurabi Code and tell Phil Sandifer to go jump in the lake?"

Maybe these new posts should be split off and sent to the Tarpit?

[everyking]

Yes, the Arbitration Committee made a terrible mistake in restricting Everyking.

They should have banned him.

A grave mistake indeed. The project may never recover. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

It's one thing to attack Sandifer's online behavior and his "real world" behavior if it crosses over into his activities on Wikipedia, but digging into him and bringing attention to his divorce goes beyond the pale. Yes, we do focus on personalities here (perhaps too often), but we do try to focus on how the personality caused problems on Wikipedia. These sort of attacks go beyond Wikipedia criticism. How does Phil Sandifer's divorce explain his online behavior and his actions on Wikipedia?

I didn't say it did. That wasn't really the point. I wasn't trying to dress it up with some kind of "constructive criticism" fig leaf. It was more a "five years later and I'm still here, asshole" kind of thing. It was something I felt like saying for the sake of my own amusement, and since it would have been exceedingly stupid to write any such thing on WP (in practice I'm treating the restriction as if it's still in effect, for obvious reasons), I posted it here.

Also, can I just point out that you're criticizing me for poking fun at the personal life of a guy who posted a live tweet marathon of his own divorce proceedings?

[Doc glasgow]

I have invited arbcom to reinstate Everyking's restrictions. It is for his own good really.

[Lar]

If he wrote Firefly, then he's a candidate for the prestigious descriptor of "stone cold genius" as that was one of the most original and best-written, albeit uneven, shows I've ever seen. He needs to watch out, however, about dissing Mickey Mouse. Mickey and his company don't have much of a sense of humor, from what I've heard, when it comes to perceived persecution. As far as Snowspinner goes, who knows, perhaps someday he might actually significantly improve an article in Wikipedia.

For the "uneven" part, I recommend finding the box set of the show. The original broadcasts were wildly out of order (many felt Fox had it in for Whedon back then), which led to a very disjointed run. Watching them on DVD lets you see them in order, plus three episodes which never made it to air.

I agree with getting the show (and the movie) on DVD and watching them in the order intended. I do also agree the writing does vary a bit from one episode to the next but on balance... may be my favorite TV show ever. Or at least of this century so far. So of course it was killed off early.

The thing is, it is filled with flaws (all these planets are in orbit around one star? How did we get there? Why are there so many? What happened to Old Earth? Horses and ATVs? Moving cattle from planet to planet actually makes money?) and the overall concept is a bit hokey (Wagon Train to the stars, revisited) but who cares? It's that good. Every main character, even though "stock", is interesting and engaging and you want to know more about them.

As for Everyking's shameful performance here, the less said the better. I've consistently said that attacking people for their personal characteristics rather than commenting on the contributions is exceedingly petty. This was one of the most petty examples I've ever seen.

[Moulton]

This is probably saying too much, but...

As for Everyking's shameful performance here, the less said the better. I've consistently said that attacking people for their personal characteristics rather than commenting on the contributions is exceedingly petty. This was one of the most petty examples I've ever seen.

The difficult question here is whether Everyking's tendency to "attack people for their personal characteristics rather than commenting on the contributions" is a revisable practice or an unchangeable character trait for which he deserves to be condemned to the fires of hell for all time.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Also, can I just point out that you're criticizing me for poking fun at the personal life of a guy who posted a live tweet marathon of his own divorce proceedings?

Point taken.

These are overreactions:

I have invited arbcom to reinstate Everyking's restrictions. It is for his own good really.

As for Everyking's shameful performance here, the less said the better. I've consistently said that attacking people for their personal characteristics rather than commenting on the contributions is exceedingly petty. This was one of the most petty examples I've ever seen.

The WR is an "off-Wiki site." When a notorious Wikipediot's off-Wiki behavior may tend to shed some light on his on-Wiki behavior, it may be appropriate to discuss it. As EK points out, in this case, it is hardly an invasion of the subject's privacy -- Mr. Sandifer is practically begging the world to discuss it.

Of course, to put this in perspective, the theme of this entire thread is "making mountains out of molehills."

It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it.

Doc, have you enrolled in "Jonny Cache as a second language" courses?

[everyking]

Phil has weighed in now with a rare on-wiki appearance to discuss how he is afraid of me. As far as I can gather, the sequence, in somewhat simplified form, goes like this:

1) Phil takes a multitude of questionable admin actions. Many editors complain about them; EK complains more vigorously than most (2005).

2) Phil grows annoyed with having his admin actions questioned. The ArbCom bars EK from said questioning (2005).

3) EK gripes, whines, and complains interminably about that restriction, feeling that it is unjustified and denigrates his work as a Wikipedian (2005-2010).

4). Restriction finally expires; EK indulges in long-awaited, off-wiki gloating (2010).

5). Phil expresses deep concern for his safety and says that Wikipedia is not a safe place for him anymore (2010).

This post has been edited by everyking:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Sounds like he should get a poodle and move to Swalwell.

[everyking]

Sounds like he should get a poodle and move to Swalwell.

Well, whatever it takes, I just hope he finds a little bit of peace. So much insecurity and paranoia must be quite burdensome. He imagines the incident in which somebody years ago called the cops on him as a grand conspiracy in which I was somehow a key actor, if not the ringleader. Obviously my years of frustration at being subjected to a petty and moronic restriction are nothing compared to the irrational terror Phil feels when people gripe about his online conduct. Even the fact that I've said nothing to him in years is not enough to allay his concerns. He's like a guy who's so afraid of heights that the mere existence of tall buildings frightens him. It's not enough for him to stay away from them; they must be torn down before he can really feel at ease.

[Somey]

Obviously my years of frustration at being subjected to a petty and moronic restriction are nothing compared to the irrational terror Phil feels when people gripe about his online conduct. Even the fact that I've said nothing to him in years is not enough to allay his concerns. He's like a guy who's so afraid of heights that the mere existence of tall buildings frightens him...

You're kidding, right? You don't think he seriously thinks of you as "dangerous"...? I mean, he's the classic Wikipedia narcissist - never admits he could have been wrong, never forgives or lets go of a grudge, never changes his tune. One could say the same about you too, I suppose - you just didn't have "cabal support" at the time it all went down, whereas he obviously did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...y_Phil_Sandifer

This stuff is just typical BS, really. The real reason he doesn't edit so much anymore is that over the years people have figured out ways to effectively deal with people like him. He probably has as much real fear of being "stalked" over something on Wikipedia as he does of being hit by a meteorite, though I'll admit he's better than most at pretending otherwise.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Point of information: a meteor does not become a meteorite until it has struck the earth and come to a full stop. Phil has zero possibility of being hit by a meteorite (although it may not be so easy to convince him of that.)

[SB_Johnny]

Phil has weighed in now with a rare on-wiki appearance to discuss how he is afraid of me.

Maybe it's just me, but I really am starting to get the impression that EK (whoever that is) really isn't all to fond of some guy named Phil (whoever that is).

It's probably just me, of course. Carry on, bytes are cheap. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

He's far more likely to be hit with an amirite.

Amirite?

Scott McDonald deserves a stupidity award for needlessly manufacturing drama. (any chance he has red hair, Moulton?)

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[The Joy]

It appears that the ArbCom is encouraging the "Community" to place restrictions/sanctions on EK. Newyorkbrad has also put out a gag order on all parties until ArbCom rules on the matter.

So, does that meant that EK, Doc, and Phil are not to discuss this further here lest sanctions be applied to the non-compliant parties?

[Doc glasgow]

He's far more likely to be hit with an amirite.

Amirite?

Scott McDonald deserves a stupidity award for needlessly manufacturing drama. (any chance he has red hair, Moulton?)

Stupidity awards are always welcome.

But really "needlessly"?

I mean, if manufacturing drama is "needless", then what the f*** is Wikipedia for? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(Don't mock it, some people actually take this stuff seriously, y'know. Whether I do is, naturally, open to the speculationd of any amateur psychologists in the room.)

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[The Joy]

Well, congratulations, Everyking. After 5 years, your restrictions expire and now you've blown it. Either ArbCom or the "Community" is going to put heavy restrictions/sanctions on you now.

Way to go! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

This post has been edited by The Joy:

[GlassBeadGame]

Well, congratulations, Everyking. After 5 years, your restrictions expire and now you've blown it. Either ArbCom or the "Community" is going to put heavy restrictions/sanctions on you now.

Way to go! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Well good for Everyking. Of course he won't continue on WP with new sanctions. No sane person would. Now he can get on with his life. He probably will be a nice enough guy once he has detoxed.

[Doc glasgow]

Of course he won't continue on WP with new sanctions. No sane person would.

There are at least two logical flaws with that.

1) there's an implied assertion that "he is sane" that is not given any referenced evidence
2) there's a presumption that some sane people without sanctions edit wikipedia, again {{fact}}

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow:

[GlassBeadGame]

Of course he won't continue on WP with new sanctions. No sane person would.

There are at least two logical flaws with that.

1) there's an unjustified implied "ergo" between the sentences
2) there's a presumption that some sane people without sanctions edit wikipedia {{fact}}

Nailed me, Doc.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Scott McDonald deserves a stupidity award for needlessly manufacturing drama.

Strong agreement here. Plus, the hypocrisy is a bit odoriferous. After WR being a BADSITE, taboo and generally unmentionable (let alone linkable,) suddenly the Wikipediots want to treat the WR with the easy familiarity of the Admin Noticeboard and link to us up one side and down the other, while presuming to apply a plethora of idiotic Wikiquette policies to these hallowed fora. Screw them.

BTW, whatever happened to that old thread from around 2005 where Snowspinner joined the Review and made himself available for questions, such as "Have you ever kissed a girl?"

[Shalom]

Scott McDonald deserves a stupidity award for needlessly manufacturing drama.

Strong agreement here. Plus, the hypocrisy is a bit odoriferous. After WR being a BADSITE, taboo and generally unmentionable (let alone linkable,) suddenly the Wikipediots want to treat the WR with the easy familiarity of the Admin Noticeboard and link to us up one side and down the other, while presuming to apply a plethora of idiotic Wikiquette policies to these hallowed fora. Screw them.

Would you prefer Doc Glasgow to have posted to ArbCom without linking but saying "on that other website? I've seen similar language from Newyorkbrad and Durova. Even when appropriate, it looks awkward. I'd rather be open about what we're talking about, especially if half the audience knows anyway.

On the substantive point, Wikipedia Review is exempted into this affair by virtue of the 2005 incident wherein EK trashed Phil on WR. Even if WR were still a "badsite", as it was then, you could expect people to care about what EK writes on WR in this particular instance.

That said, Doc gets an award for wasting people's time. EK gets two beers and a ride down the nearest emergency exit slide for causing drama and being exceptionally rude and vindictive.

[Versa]

Point of information: a meteor does not become a meteorite until it has struck the earth and come to a full stop. Phil has zero possibility of being hit by a meteorite (although it may not be so easy to convince him of that.)

Does a meteorite somehow become a meteor again if I pick it up?

I don't think so.

I could very easily pick up a meteorite and throw it at someone.

I'll buy one on ebay tomorrow and throw it at people downtown. Here's one for $45.00. http://cgi.ebay.com/SIKHOTE-ALIN-Meteorite...0#ht_2878wt_904

So read the San Diego papers next week and search for the headline: "5 People Hit By The Same Meteorite"

[Somey]

Screw them.

And the rest of their gene pool...

BTW, whatever happened to that old thread from around 2005 where Snowspinner joined the Review and made himself available for questions, such as "Have you ever kissed a girl?"

This one? It's a bit of a confusing read, because Hushthis was a moderator, and when he left he deleted all his posts. Since he was fairly active in that thread, it looks like some of the other people's posts are responses to things that nobody had actually said, but thankfully his name is preserved in (most of) the quote boxes.

I should say that (IMO) people who deliberately try to seem reasonable and "above the fray" can usually pull it off, at least in the short term. So we were never really going to learn anything useful from a situation like that, even if it might have been possible to learn something useful from "Snowie" at all, in any situation.

And having said all that, I always saw Sandifer mostly as an example of how Wikipedia could be callously hypocritical about their commitment to "civility," since if they'd cared about civility back then, they would never have let him be an admin - they might even have banned him. They're less hypocritical about that now, but they'd almost have to be, really. Anyway, most of Sandifer's personal interests appeared to be related to pop culture, comic books and the like, and the rest of it was probably just an unusual penchant for belittling people he thought were somehow "stupid" or inferior to him in some way - again, a classic narcissist behavioral hallmark. If he was pursuing a "questionable" ideological or political agenda, I never really noticed it, and frankly I doubt he would have wanted to put himself in the position of having to defend something like that - too much effort with too little return, from his perspective.

Does a meteorite somehow become a meteor again if I pick it up?

Y'know, I was gonna say "falling star" because I was worried something just like this would happen, but I thought, "no, stick with something prosaic." Damn! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[The Adversary]

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

Couldn't have said it better even if I did care enough to bother.

Seconded.

At the moment I am at a loss to what/who I dislike more: I guy who twitters (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) about his divorce, or a guy who draws attention to it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ?

I think I will call it a draw.

I believe the expression in English is: "A pox on both your houses"?

[GlassBeadGame]

The "Everyking injustice" was always a non-story, which bore no comparison to any of the real problems of, or real damaged caused by, Wikipedia. It only became a perennial WR long-term topic because you drolled on about it. What it showed was that you are more of a kool-aid drinking cultist than any "Wikipedian in good standing", because you allowed your wiki-reputation to actually matter to you.

Couldn't have said it better even if I did care enough to bother.

Seconded.

At the moment I am at a loss to what/who I dislike more: I guy who twitters (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) about his divorce, or a guy who draws attention to it (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) ?

I think I will call it a draw.

I believe the expression in English is: "A pox on both your houses"?

There is something recursive about your post. I am in for one more iteration.

[Doc glasgow]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

Alternatively, we could have Moulten psychoanalyse them.

[The Joy]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

Alternatively, we could have Moulten psychoanalyse them.

I don't know about Moulten, but Moulton might be willing. I wonder if they are related?

At any rate, Newyorkbrad came close to cursing. I don't think anyone has ever come close to doing that. Everyking can now say that he holds the record for the longest restrictions on any editor and making Brad nearly tear someone a new eye hole. I just hope this whole kerfluffle doesn't create a new de facto BADSITES policy regarding WR.

(My condolences, Brad, on your loss. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) )

[Somey]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

We could, but I doubt Mr. Everyking would "win," or even come close, despite how damning this incident might appear. The competition is just too stiff...

Also, I should point out that I'm the one who pointed out that Sandifer had "live tweeted" his divorce proceedings - EK merely mentioned that he'd "been through a divorce recently." If anyone should be chided for drawing people's attention to Sandifer's somewhat-bizarre behavior, it should be me.

Hopefully they'll just let this whole matter drop. If they can't figure out that it's the restriction, not anything directly related to Sandifer himself, that's been bugging Mr. Everyking all this time, then they're a lot less perceptive than I thought they were. Luckily, they do seem to have figured this out, and I expect most of them realize that Sandifer is stirring the pot (by pretending to be "afraid" of EK) simply because he can't help himself.

This is not to say that EK doesn't take Wikipedia waaaaay too seriously, though, since he clearly does. Oh well!

[Ottava]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

Alternatively, we could have Moulten psychoanalyse them.

Can I be nominated? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

By the way, I opposed EK from being anything but banned.


Somey

Hopefully they'll just let this whole matter drop. If they can't figure out that it's the restriction, not anything directly related to Sandifer himself, that's been bugging Mr. Everyking all this time, then they're a lot less perceptive than I thought they were.

Aren't EK's statements about Sandifer evidence that Sandifer bugs EK just by existing and that there would never be a cure? It is like saying if poison is always poisonous that allowing people to consume poison wont do anything but poison them - i.e. the ban on the item is the only acceptable way to end the situation (without killing the subject).

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[SB_Johnny]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

Alternatively, we could have Moulten psychoanalyse them.

Can I be nominated? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

I think you get the nom for most likely to retire from the postal service with a bang.

[Somey]

Aren't EK's statements about Sandifer evidence that Sandifer bugs EK just by existing and that there would never be a cure? It is like saying if poison is always poisonous that allowing people to consume poison wont do anything but poison them - i.e. the ban on the item is the only acceptable way to end the situation (without killing the subject).

It could very well seem that way to someone who already dislikes EK and has had little or no involvement with Mr. Sandifer. However, EK almost has to characterize Sandifer as a jerk, basically, to support his argument that the restriction was unjustified and directed at the wrong person. After all, it was Sandifer's behavior, not his editing per se, that was the issue. EK was the one saying things like, assume good faith! and these blocks seem needlessly punitive, do they not? and shouldn't actions taken against users who have been making constructive edits be subject to some sort of review? ...whereas Sandifer was essentially saying, "no, I say this is an obvious case of trolling and trolls must be banned, end of story, and any call for further discussion should be treated as more trolling."

I suppose that for EK, it seems like a matter of principle, even if you don't really believe in the principles he believes in. If he'd just wanted the restriction lifted, he probably could have said, "I was wrong, Phil was right, Phil deserves an apology - so okay, I apologize and I promise I'll never do it again." But he couldn't do that, because not only would it be completely (and transparently) untrue, it would have meant his acceptance of the idea that the restriction was valid in the first place. As long as he never accepted the idea of there being a "stain" on his "record," he could continue on Wikipedia as if no such stain ever existed.

For the sake of anyone who isn't familiar with this whole business, this all started in March 2005, right about here, after Sandifer blocked someone over EK's objections for the then-not-codified sin of what later became known as "wikistalking" (and later, "wikihounding," when people with an ounce of sense started to complain about WP's egregious misuse of the term "stalking"). It was extremely obvious to anyone observing that Sandifer was totally getting off on his self-imagined "power" as a Wikipedia administrator, bearing in mind that WP had barely cracked the Alexa Top 100 at that point. There was no way he should ever have been made an admin based on his behavior, and he never would make admin now, or even as long ago as 2008. (IMO, the reason for it then was mostly seniority, his ability as a proofreader, and his talent for sucking up to the "right" people.)

The fact is, there was rarely a more obvious case of an administrative double-standard, rarely a clearer indication that a "cabal" existed, and rarely a better example of the utter disdain that some of the early WP admins had for clear and comprehensible rules - preferring to simply do whatever they wanted, simply because they believed they knew better. It's also a good example of the sort of thing that ultimately led to WR being created.

[Moulton]

He should have just told Sandifer to go jump in the lake.

[everyking]

Aren't EK's statements about Sandifer evidence that Sandifer bugs EK just by existing and that there would never be a cure? It is like saying if poison is always poisonous that allowing people to consume poison wont do anything but poison them - i.e. the ban on the item is the only acceptable way to end the situation (without killing the subject).

Well, you bug me just by existing, but for the most part I manage to keep my mouth shut. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

It could very well seem that way to someone who already dislikes EK and has had little or no involvement with Mr. Sandifer. However, EK almost has to characterize Sandifer as a jerk, basically, to support his argument that the restriction was unjustified and directed at the wrong person. After all, it was Sandifer's behavior, not his editing per se, that was the issue. EK was the one saying things like, assume good faith! and these blocks seem needlessly punitive, do they not? and shouldn't actions taken against users who have been making constructive edits be subject to some sort of review? ...whereas Sandifer was essentially saying, "no, I say this is an obvious case of trolling and trolls must be banned, end of story, and any call for further discussion should be treated as more trolling."

I suppose that for EK, it seems like a matter of principle, even if you don't really believe in the principles he believes in. If he'd just wanted the restriction lifted, he probably could have said, "I was wrong, Phil was right, Phil deserves an apology - so okay, I apologize and I promise I'll never do it again." But he couldn't do that, because not only would it be completely (and transparently) untrue, it would have meant his acceptance of the idea that the restriction was valid in the first place. As long as he never accepted the idea of there being a "stain" on his "record," he could continue on Wikipedia as if no such stain ever existed.

For the sake of anyone who isn't familiar with this whole business, this all started in March 2005, right about here, after Sandifer blocked someone over EK's objections for the then-not-codified sin of what later became known as "wikistalking" (and later, "wikihounding," when people with an ounce of sense started to complain about WP's egregious misuse of the term "stalking"). It was extremely obvious to anyone observing that Sandifer was totally getting off on his self-imagined "power" as a Wikipedia administrator, bearing in mind that WP had barely cracked the Alexa Top 100 at that point. There was no way he should ever have been made an admin based on his behavior, and he never would make admin now, or even as long ago as 2008. (IMO, the reason for it then was mostly seniority, his ability as a proofreader, and his talent for sucking up to the "right" people.)

The fact is, there was rarely a more obvious case of an administrative double-standard, rarely a clearer indication that a "cabal" existed, and rarely a better example of the utter disdain that some of the early WP admins had for clear and comprehensible rules - preferring to simply do whatever they wanted, simply because they believed they knew better. It's also a good example of the sort of thing that ultimately led to WR being created.

This is all very perceptive.

[Somey]

This is all very perceptive.

Well, that's why they pay me the big bucks.

[EricBarbour]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

We could, but I doubt Mr. Everyking would "win," or even come close, despite how damning this incident might appear. The competition is just too stiff...

Yes, as in, all of them. EK, Sandifer, Arby-barbie-com, whoever.
Freaks, mutants, hoseheads, drooling spazzies.

I'm disgusted, can't you tell?

[everyking]

I just wonder if WR can introduce a "whiner of the year" award for the most self-obsessed, narcissistic, self-righteous Wikipedians?

We could, but I doubt Mr. Everyking would "win," or even come close, despite how damning this incident might appear. The competition is just too stiff...

Yes, as in, all of them. EK, Sandifer, Arby-barbie-com, whoever.
Freaks, mutants, hoseheads, drooling spazzies.

I'm disgusted, can't you tell?

Well, Wikipedia is all about collaboration, and I'm willing to share the prize.

[Ottava]

Aren't EK's statements about Sandifer evidence that Sandifer bugs EK just by existing and that there would never be a cure? It is like saying if poison is always poisonous that allowing people to consume poison wont do anything but poison them - i.e. the ban on the item is the only acceptable way to end the situation (without killing the subject).

Well, you bug me just by existing, but for the most part I manage to keep my mouth shut. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Well, I think you are far worse than anything you think Sandifer is, yet you don't see me wasting my time.

You need to get a sense of proportion - there is tons of porn that needs to be destroyed, pedophiles running rampant, articles filled with plagiarism and other bs, and here you are poking at a person who stopped mattering 4 years ago assuming he ever mattered.

Hell, the bs that Jack Merridew is getting away with right now is far more important, yet there you are probably masturbating to your own obsessions.



Hey EK, why not put yourself to good use and help clean up this major copyvio mess that I revealed? There are a couple hundred articles to go through. That will make it seem like you are willing to do something else but troll all day.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Doc glasgow]

Having been very critical of Everyking, I think it is only fair to say that his undertaking not to comment on Sandifer is welcome. Kudos to him for that.

Without going over which one of them is right or wrong, I think it is probably in Everyking and Sandifer's interest (and in Wikipedia's for those who care - and Everyking does) that we allow that to be that. Both parties have promised not to comment further on the other, and I see no reason not to take that a face value.

I'll not be posting on this again, and I'd encourage other to drop it: and encourage Everyking to ignore those who predictably won't.

Five years is a long story - bit perhaps "that's all folks".

[TungstenCarbide]

Having been very critical of Everyking, I think it is only fair to say that his undertaking not to comment on Sandifer is welcome. Kudos to him for that.

Without going over which one of them is right or wrong, I think it is probably in Everyking and Sandifer's interest (and in Wikipedia's for those who care - and Everyking does) that we allow that to be that. Both parties have promised not to comment further on the other, and I see no reason not to take that a face value.

I'll not be posting on this again, and I'd encourage other to drop it: and encourage Everyking to ignore those who predictably won't.

Five years is a long story - bit perhaps "that's all folks".

This from the idiot stirring the pot with an arbcom request. Hypocrite.

By the way, Scott, do you have red hair?

[Doc glasgow]

Having been very critical of Everyking, I think it is only fair to say that his undertaking not to comment on Sandifer is welcome. Kudos to him for that.

Without going over which one of them is right or wrong, I think it is probably in Everyking and Sandifer's interest (and in Wikipedia's for those who care - and Everyking does) that we allow that to be that. Both parties have promised not to comment further on the other, and I see no reason not to take that a face value.

I'll not be posting on this again, and I'd encourage other to drop it: and encourage Everyking to ignore those who predictably won't.

Five years is a long story - bit perhaps "that's all folks".

This from the idiot stirring the pot with an arbcom request. Hypocrite.

By the way, Scott, do you have red hair?

I said I'd not post on this again. So I'm not even going to defend myself against that charge.

Hair, however, is a safer subject. All Scots have "red hair and large limbs" according to Tacitus.

Or was that the Picts.

[Doc glasgow]

I have not before seen Scotts so unfairly sullied, except for the invention of golf.

Now, I just want to create [[List of way golf is like Wikipedia]]

Let's start with "promises so much and delivers so little"

I have not before seen Scotts so unfairly sullied, except for the invention of golf.

Now, I just want to create [[List of way golf is like Wikipedia]]

Let's start with "promises so much and delivers so little"

Or maybe "in both people get their balls whacked across the field"

[everyking]

Having been very critical of Everyking, I think it is only fair to say that his undertaking not to comment on Sandifer is welcome. Kudos to him for that.

Without going over which one of them is right or wrong, I think it is probably in Everyking and Sandifer's interest (and in Wikipedia's for those who care - and Everyking does) that we allow that to be that. Both parties have promised not to comment further on the other, and I see no reason not to take that a face value.

I'll not be posting on this again, and I'd encourage other to drop it: and encourage Everyking to ignore those who predictably won't.

Five years is a long story - bit perhaps "that's all folks".

Let me point out that I already had a standing commitment with regard to that on Wikipedia, which I had held to several years. Why did you think some snide commentary and petty jokes at a website that is not Wikipedia, on a thread already full of this crap needed to be punished on Wikipedia? If you really wanted me to not make those cracks off-wiki, you could have just sent a PM and asked nicely. You created a big, unnecessary drama that led to a bunch of outrageous allegations getting made on-wiki. I can only hope the ArbCom will now have the decency to redact that stuff as I've requested.

This post has been edited by everyking:

[Doc glasgow]

Having been very critical of Everyking, I think it is only fair to say that his undertaking not to comment on Sandifer is welcome. Kudos to him for that.

Without going over which one of them is right or wrong, I think it is probably in Everyking and Sandifer's interest (and in Wikipedia's for those who care - and Everyking does) that we allow that to be that. Both parties have promised not to comment further on the other, and I see no reason not to take that a face value.

I'll not be posting on this again, and I'd encourage other to drop it: and encourage Everyking to ignore those who predictably won't.

Five years is a long story - bit perhaps "that's all folks".

Let me point out that I already had a standing commitment with regard to that on Wikipedia, which I had held to several years. Why did you think some snide commentary and petty jokes at a website that is not Wikipedia, on a thread already full of this crap needed to be punished on Wikipedia? If you really wanted me to not make those cracks off-wiki, you could have just sent a PM and asked nicely. You created a big, unnecessary drama that led to a bunch of outrageous allegations getting made on-wiki. I can only hope the ArbCom will now have the decency to redact that stuff as I've requested.

Glass houses and stones?

Maybe I could have done better, but you're not really in a place to do the moral highground move.

Anyway, as I say, let's let it drop.

[GlassBeadGame]

Moved off topic posts to the locked Politics and Such thread.

[Somey]

Now, I just want to create [[List of way golf is like Wikipedia]]

Let's start with "promises so much and delivers so little"

That was on my list of possible WR blog articles, actually - Wikipedia vs. Golf: Which is More Frustrating? There are actually quite a few workable parallels, not the least of which is that you can go to the exact same hole on the exact same course on two different days, and on one day you'll play it perfectly, and on the other you'll make one little mistake and it turns into a disaster that ruins your entire game.

[SB_Johnny]

Now, I just want to create [[List of way golf is like Wikipedia]]

Let's start with "promises so much and delivers so little"

That was on my list of possible WR blog articles, actually - Wikipedia vs. Golf: Which is More Frustrating? There are actually quite a few workable parallels, not the least of which is that you can go to the exact same hole on the exact same course on two different days, and on one day you'll play it perfectly, and on the other you'll make one little mistake and it turns into a disaster that ruins your entire game.

Not that I know anything about golf (or at least non-miniature-golf), but at least you have the option of throwing the club down to blow off steam.

I suppose you could do that with your laptop too, but they tend to break a lot when you do that.

[EricBarbour]

Let me point out that I already had a standing commitment with regard to that on Wikipedia, which I had held to several years. Why did you think some snide commentary and petty jokes at a website that is not Wikipedia, on a thread already full of this crap needed to be punished on Wikipedia? If you really wanted me to not make those cracks off-wiki, you could have just sent a PM and asked nicely. You created a big, unnecessary drama that led to a bunch of outrageous allegations getting made on-wiki. I can only hope the ArbCom will now have the decency to redact that stuff as I've requested.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Golf is gay. Wikipedia is manly.
I think they both are crap. But that's just me. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nuke.gif)

[Doc glasgow]

Golf is gay. Wikipedia is manly.

Methinks there's a higher proportion of "uphill golfers" on Wikipedia than in most clubhouses.

[everyking]

Well, I think you are far worse than anything you think Sandifer is, yet you don't see me wasting my time.

You need to get a sense of proportion - there is tons of porn that needs to be destroyed, pedophiles running rampant, articles filled with plagiarism and other bs, and here you are poking at a person who stopped mattering 4 years ago assuming he ever mattered.

Hell, the bs that Jack Merridew is getting away with right now is far more important, yet there you are probably masturbating to your own obsessions.



Hey EK, why not put yourself to good use and help clean up this major copyvio mess that I revealed? There are a couple hundred articles to go through. That will make it seem like you are willing to do something else but troll all day.

I've been writing articles. What about you, how have you been contributing? Ohhhh, that's right... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)