Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to know if Snowspinner will be up for punishment as well for his actions. Or will they only be considering me? Only considering the criticism&mdash;the words&mdash;and not the actions?

I also propose that there be no voting on this case until September at the earliest. This will give us all time to deliberate and prepare arguments without haste. If this is not accepted then I will not present evidence. Everyking 07:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ceasefire, not punishment
I don't think anybody here is looking to see any sort of punitive or vindictive action against Everyking&mdash;nobody is looking for banning or desysopping, and everyone acknowledges that Everyking generally does excellent work at Wikipedia. This RFArb–hopefully–isn't about "punishment". Quite frankly, I think most editors would be quite happy to see a return to civility on WP:AN and its subpages. Achieving that with a minimum of red tape should be our goal here.

I have repeatedly encouraged Everyking to file an RfC on Snowspinner's itchy blocking finger, to no avail. (Diffs will be forthcoming). That is the generally-accepted method of reviewing an admin's actions where informal comment has broken down. He has not chosen to follow that route, and has instead continued to make rude remarks and demand desysoppings on WP:AN pages.

I suggest the following resolutions. I know I am perhaps putting the cart before the horse given how recently this RFArb was filed, but perhaps the involved parties could be saved all the effort of evidence gathering and jump to a ceasefire solution.


 * 1) Everyking is prohibited from stating that an admin should be desysopped (or any equivalent statement) on WP:AN and its subpages, or on any User talk page. He is free to comment on admin actions, subject to Part 2 of this resolution.
 * 2) *Exception. Everyking may make such remarks if they relate directly to a formal dispute resolution process (RfC or RFArb) to which the sysop in question is a party.  Everyking is not restricted from filing such reports.
 * 3) Everyking is placed on personal attack and civility parole on WP:AN and its subpages, and on any User talk page. Constructive criticism is welcomed and encouraged on Wikipedia; insults and snide remarks are not.
 * 4) Enforcement. Any admin may block Everyking for a period of up to 12 hours for a violation of Part 1 or Part 2 of this resolution, with the exception of Snowspinner, TenOfAllTrades (and up to four(?) others, to be specified at Everyking's discretion) and the admin who has been criticized.

The exceptions in Part 3 are meant to deflect accusations of a cabal at work, and hopefully to reduce the risk of a block war. If EK believes that more than six editors are out to get him, then something is seriously wrong.

If Everyking would like to suggest appropriate restrictions on other editors' behaviour or modifications of the above proposals, I welcome his comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great start, although I would make a couple of small changes:
 * Condense point one to say that EK may make statements about the desysopping of an administrator only on pages relating directly relating to a formal dispute resolution process (RfC or RFArb) to which the sysop in question is a party.
 * the purpose of this is to avoid the potential for loopholes and accusations of his exploiting them.
 * Add an exception that point one does not apply (but point 2 does) if he is the sysop in question.
 * this is to be explcitly fair. If another user were to propose his desysoping on WP:AN (for example), then I would not block him for responding, but I could see a huge debate about this arising (possibly resulting in EK being repeatedly blocked and unblocked).
 * Limit the paroles to 1 year from the date of closure of this case.
 * I don't think an indefinite parole is fair. If the restrictions haven't worked by that time I don't think they will and alternative measures should be considered.
 * The paroles apply to all pages and articles in all namespaces on the English Wikipedia, but blocking administrators should consider being more lenient for instances outside the Wikipedia and User: namespace.
 * Although EK's conduct is not an issue generally, I think don't think there should be to possibility of loopholes as above. However, I think that encouraging blocking admins to be more lenient where there hasn't previously been a problem is only fair.
 * The maximum block shoudl be 24 hours, but durations of over 12 hours should only be used for repeated or particularly serious transgressions.
 * This could probably be worded better, but the intention is to allow a range of punishments so that if he makes one borderline remark he is not blocked for as long as a thundering desysopping demand. 24 hours allows a greater range than 12 hours.
 * I am happy to become an exception in part 3 (not to be counted in the four nominated by EK) if EK and/or the abritrators feel this apropriate. Thryduulf 15:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * By and large I'd agree with Thryduulf. (My suggestions were definitely meant to be rough essays, rather than etched in stone.)  I left the gap in point 1 to allow Everyking to do things like announce on WP:AN that he has filed an RfC or RFArb–or to note that one has been filed–in response to an admin action.  I quite agree with a limited duration for paroles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand and agree with your remark about anouncing an RfC/RfAr, and it wasn't something I'd thought of. I think my wording would allow a statement like "I've filed an RfC against user:NastyAdministrator at in response to their actions at ...." but not "I've filed an RfC calling for user:NastyAdministrator to be desysopped.", which I see no harm in (in fact I think that the first wording would be better for everybody to use"). Thryduulf 20:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in making myself a fourth rate editor. If I'm going to become one I'd rather let somebody else do it to me, so at least I don't have myself to blame. If Snowspinner wants to cut a deal he will have to make concessions equivalent to my own concessions. And he must give me assurance that he will stick to the deal, which he did not do last time. Everyking 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see any of this making you any less of an editor than you currently are - and outside of comments on administrator actions I think you are amoung the best. To my mind this is designed as an attempt to not impact your article editing, or the vandal fighting you do. You also some of your points at WP:AN and WP:AN/I are very good (you come accross to me as having particularly good judgment regarding inapropriate usernames for example) and it would be a shame to looe these because of some personal attacks. If there is anything you particularly have issue with - e.g. if you think it will impact on you in a way we haven't thoguht of, then say. If we don't know about it we can't do anything about it. Thryduulf 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For the moment, my original two points at the top of the page need to be addressed by the arbitrators. In any case, as for what Ten proposed, point 1 is agreeable, I'm not sure about points 2 and 3. I don't like empowering people to block me. I already have "mentors" (who have been taking it easy, since I haven't given them anything to do); why not just empower one of those mentors to watch my AN/I comments? Everyking 20:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have noted this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Mentorship, asking for the opinions and input of Everyking's mentors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice day. &rarr;Raul654 20:32, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) We're not in any rush to adjudicate your case any faster than the rest (however, bear in mind that we do not adjudicate cases strictly according to the order they were accepted)
 * 2) If you choose not to present a defense, you do so only to your deteriment
 * 3) We don't like ultimatums.


 * This shows you about how much "civility" the Arbitrators actually have, despite all their fastidious demands from ordinary users. Everyking 20:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyking, when we're trying to reach a reasonable solution revolving around your alleged attacks and gross lapses of civility, snide remarks to the ArbCom aren't helpful. Given that you did deliver an ultimatum, how much civility are you expecting in return? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that I've had any "gross lapses of civility". Minor lapses, OK. And actually I thought what I was asking was pretty reasonable. Raul didn't even respond to the part about Snowspinner. Everyking 21:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"Ultimatum" is very far from an emotionally neutral word for characterising what Everyking said. I think it rather unfair of Raul and Ten to characterise it that way. Giving EK credit for the minor skill of spotting a poor user name is just a device. It makes it then appear fair to have a go at him becuase of his essential contribution on the admin pages: He identifies the unreasonable actions of several admins, Snowspinner chief amonst them. Who else is doing so? There are many admins, some of them act unreasonably. This needs to be ideintified. Why do I say "essential"? Without Everyking no one else would be doing this enough. Paul Beardsell 11:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * For my part at least, I do not object to EK's highlighting of unreasonable actions - this needs doing. My beef is more with the way this is done - you do not need to make personal attacks and there is no excuse for not being civil. Also there is a general consensus on what actions are acceptable for an admin and what aren't, but at times it feels to me as though EK doesn't respect this consensus. Unboubtedly the most annoyign thing from a personal point of view is where people refuse to inform themselves of the facts, and EK behaves this way on occasion which isn't the best plan when people are pissed off at you. I appologise if this comes accross as any sort of personal attack, I don't intend it to - but please tell me if it does. My intention is to explain why I feel this RfAr is needed. Thryduulf 21:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thtyduulf, once again I have read Snowspinner's statement and I have followed the links through and taken care to read them in context. None of them seem like a punishable "personal insult" to me.  Certainly the type of language used by Everyking seems far from unusual here at Wikipedia:  All day long people make comments like his without RfArs being raised.  It seems to me I can find far more insulting language from some of the ArbCom members themselves.  I reckon this RfAr is raised because of what Everyking says and not how he says it:  Everyking is an irritant to Snowspinner and other admins who use their powers sometimes without reference to policy, or so it seems.  It is that which has prompted the bringing the RfAr, not EK's mode of expression.  Paul Beardsell 01:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

" If this is not accepted then I will not present evidence" reads like an ultimatum to me. And I never allow myself to be influenced by ultimatums, As for EKs other points. I am in the process of starting to look at this case now, but I generally look at everyone's behaviour (including Snowspinner). I urge you to present a defence. It's in your own best interests. And I'd like to thank the other wikipedians for presenting their ideas for a solution on this page. We will look over your ideas very carefully. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You could, assuming good faith, read EK's "ultimatum" as simply a disclosure of his current lack of free time and a declaration of his intentions. He is saying that he will not have time to properly prepare a defense if voting before a specified date occurs and, therefore, he won't bother in such circumstance.  As doubtless you, Theresa, value EK every bit as much as everyone else claims to here then presumably you would rather EK prepare a defense.  Paul Beardsell 23:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've already stated that I would prefer Everking to prepare a defence. But sorry I don't buy a lack of free time argument. Everyking seems to find plenty of time to comment on everyone elses actions on AN/I so he has the time to comment on his own actions on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It looks like you may be making a distinction between comments and actions. So in this case really I would not be commenting on my actions, I'd be commenting on my comments, since it's my commenting that Snowspinner objects to. I think a defense in this case would run along the lines of citing my right to hold and express opinions, that kind of thing. It's a really weird case, when you think about it. Snowspinner's controversial actions, including overt rejecting of policy, is apparently being given a pass, whereas my criticism of those actions is going to get me put on the rack. Everyking 10:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No one is giving anyone a pass. If you have complaints about Snowspinner then put them in the evidence page. The point that I am making above, that you seem to have missed is - if you have time to critisize others then you have time to defend yourself. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 12:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner and Everyking
The case should be renamed "Snowspinner and Everyking". There is good precedent for this. Paul Beardsell 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That would require Everyking making claims against me, which would require his actual participation in the case. Snowspinner 02:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * It might require that if you were making the rules up as you go along. But precedent does suggest the renaming.  Essentially you're pissed off that Everyking points out things you do which are against policy.  You bring a complaint to that effect.  It's Snowspinner and Everyking.  Paul Beardsell 12:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have already said that I will look at everyone's behaviour. We are not going to rename the case once it has been accepted. If Everyking wants to claim that his behavior is justified by Snowspinner's he will have to put the evidence of this on the evidence page as part of his defence. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

In reply to the other part of Everyking's inquiry above - I'm open to sanctioning Snowspinner, if (and only if) Everyking provides convincing evidence to the effect that Snowspinner has abused his powers. By that, I mean Everyking's typical "Snowspinner blocked user:X without discussing it beforehand on WP:AN" comments are wholly insuffecient. &rarr;Raul654 08:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Insufficient how? I really cannot work this out.  Is it this particular form of words you do not like?  Could you give a form of words which would be acceptable to you?  Paul Beardsell 15:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that failing to note a block on AN is not generally considered a reason to censure somebody, and that Everyking would have to make a case along the lines of my blocks being bad things. Something more in the form of "Snowspinner blocked X, who was just a clueless newbie. He blocked Y, who he was involved in a dispute with. He blocked Z, who wasn't actually a sockpuppet..." Snowspinner 15:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is mere comedy. Failing to discuss blocks beforehand is the least of my complaints. Everyking 18:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not the form of words -- it's the fact that his complaints are often utterly devoid of substance. However, I'm open to the possibility that this is not always the case, and that he might have a legitimate grievance or two against Snowspinner. &rarr;Raul654 15:28, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why am I trying to convince someone who's already dead-set on punishing me? What you're saying is fantasy land stuff. When are my complaints ever devoid of substance? 95% of the time, the complaints are that Snowspinner acted outside of policy, and in many of those cases in direct and overt opposition to policy. Do you believe policy is not a matter of substance, Raul? Why are you an Arbitrator? Everyking 18:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a deafening silence from Raul about this. He believes that my criticism of Snowspinner for ignoring and/or rejecting policy is punishable. And moreover, as we can see from Snowspinner's user page, he believes, like Snowspinner, that policy is irrelevant. Yet he is on the ArbCom. Is that not a little scary? How can one be on a body that serves to interpret and enforce policy and yet at the same time believe policy can be disregarded at will? Would any outsider to our processes not think that's completely insane? I mean, here we have an Arbitrator eager to punish someone just for emphasizing the importance of following the rules! Nothing more! That's the whole complaint: I bitch at Phil for not following the rules. Well, I say you worry about punishing the guy who's breaking the rules, personally. One's head could explode trying to make sense of this stuff. Everyking 07:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * First of all, I didn't even see your reply above (you can thank Paul, whose edit immedieatly thereafter covered it up from my watchlist). Now to reply to your earlier comment (about being dead-set on punishing you), you're flat out wrong. I'm interested in seeing the current situation resolved as amicably as possible, in such a way as is most beneficial to Wikipedia. In particular, I agree with what was said earlier about the very good RC patrol work you do, and the fact that you have never misused your admin powers. So, despite your claims about our ulterior motives, I have no interest in seeing you de-adminned; I believe that would be a miscarriage of justice.
 * Now I'm not going to get into the specifics of your case (because I have not yet formed concrete opinions about it nor am I inclined to discuss it in this forum) I will reply to your comments about my interpretation of the rules. I have said repeatedly (and, when I was running for the arbcom, emphatically) that rules are not meant to be a straight-jacket. Administrators are not automatons - we expect admins to apply good judgement, common sense, and discretion. We're not here to make rules for every possible misbehavior bad-users can come up with; nor does the arbcom does not exist to adjudicate every dispute. Editing WIkipedia is a privilege, not a right; if you misbehave, it can be revoked. &rarr;Raul654 07:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Theresa has now said more than once now that she will look at eveyone's behaviour. You, Raul, have just said you will look only at Snowspinner's behaviour if Everyking jumps through some unspecified hoop.  Theresa seems to accept that there may be grounds for renaming the case but says too late now.  OK.  But you are evidently reluctant to look at Snowspinner's behaviour at all.  You don't see this as "Snowspinner and Everyking".  What is the ArbCom's take on this as a whole?  Paul Beardsell 15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And(!) you once again pre-judge the whole damn thing. It is impossible for you to hold the opinion you do ("his complaints are often utterly devoid of substance") and to continue to judge him fairly when this is precisely the main issue at hand.  And the appearance of being a fair judge is destroyed, which is almost as important.  I think you should recuse yourself from this case.  Paul Beardsell 15:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I find it utterly amazing that Paul can (with a straight face) paraphrase this sentence "I'm open to sanctioning Snowspinner, if (and only if) Everyking provides convincing evidence" - into this - "You, Raul, have just said you will look only at Snowspinner's behaviour if Everyking jumps through some unspecified hoop".
 * 2) Your request that I recuse myself is duly noted. Request denied. &rarr;Raul654 15:43, August 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) You mischaracterise what I say. The unspecified hoop is you insisting on the form in which evidence presented by Everyking will be considered acceptable by you without saying what this is.  And a sneer of contempt is not a straight face.  But you're having a laugh.
 * 2) I question your use of the word "duly".
 * 3) You snipe at the edges leaving the issue of plainly apparent bias unaddressed. Paul Beardsell 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Some off-handed comments
If the arbitrators want to wait until September I suppose I can't stop them, but I intend to present evidence and move with reasonable speed on my end. Does EK have some explanation for why the case should be delayed specially? If he's busy and unable to present a defense, that would be one thing. If he's just stalling, I'd have to be opposed to it.

As for covering my conduct, it seems like the correct time to mention that would have been in the days while the case was being mentioned. But why rules lawyer. If Everyking wants to present evidence about my shameful conduct, my feeling is that he should go for it. Of course, if he wants to not present evidence before September, well, I'm not sure how the arbcom would consider evidence that hasn't been presented about my conduct. Snowspinner 02:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot speak for the others, but I intend to treat this case as any other. If by the time I/we get around to looking at it, he has not presented a defense (or at least given us some reason why we should give him special consideration), then I will be considering the case sans his explinations of events. &rarr;Raul654 02:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I currently devote a large majority of my free time to Wikipedia, but it's important to me that that time be spent on article work of some sort, so that I feel productive, not defending myself in a case where the verdict is probably predetermined anyway. (I realize that Snowspinner doesn't do article work, so he can devote all his wiki-time to this stuff, but that's him, not me.) Therefore I am not going to be willing to devote more than a little bit of time here and there to even thinking about how to approach this, much less actually compiling evidence. Moreover I didn't say there could be no progress on the case until September. I just said voting should wait until September. Snowspinner can do what he wants in the meantime, and the arbitrators can deliberate over it, but they should wait to do the actual voting until I've had a comfortable window of opportunity to prepare a defense (if you want to find somebody who'll prepare a defense on my behalf, then such a long window won't be necessary).


 * Note the willingness of Raul to pursue this without hearing my side of the story. If we were pursuing things fairly, we would insist that the other side get heard: if necessary, we would have someone ready to write a defense on the other side's behalf. But Raul couldn't care less, it seems. He'll be perfectly happy to just take Phil's word for it and vote based on that. Everyking 04:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * May I step in here as an outside observor? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I've just come here after poking around on the Recent Changes, and found this discussion.  Please forgive me if I'm out of line, but it seems to me that what you're saying is that the arbitrators are not allowed to make any decisions if the person for whom this request is named refuses to participate.  Does that not mean that there could never be any arbitrations, because all of the accused would just refuse to participate?  John Barleycorn 04:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that. I just said I wanted time. Everyking 05:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm about to go away for two weeks to Bulgaria and won't be able to vote until I get back on the 12th August. I'm asking the other arbitrators not to vote on this case until then because I would like to participate in this one. Thast IMO is plenty of time for you to prepare a defence. After that I will get to your case as and when it comes to the top of my list, which to be honest may very well not be for a couple of weeks anyway. But I will not deliberately stall. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to participate in this one? Everyking 09:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It takes my fancy. There is no special reason. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Another biased arbitrator
Raul and I have bickered occasionally in the past, but at this point it is clear that he has a strong antipathy towards me. If the evidence on this very page weren't enough, here's something he just wrote about me on AN/I: "people might actually believe you when you make statements like this if you occasionally did your homework before commenting on issues you know nothing about". Well, that sounds a little bit biased to me. So, which arbitrators have expressed strongly negative feelings towards me?


 * Gerard
 * Raul
 * Fennec (called me "a disgrace to Wikipedia"; banned me from IRC for criticizing Snowspinner)
 * Jayjg (venomous attacks on at least two Wikipedia namespace pages)

All four of these have an obligation to recuse, in my opinion.Everyking 08:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Everking but it's up to the arbitrators to decide if they want to recuse, and no one else. As for Raul being a little bit biased - his words on this page have been firm not negative and the comment on AN/I sums up the general impression of you. You do often comment on cases that you know nothing about. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've heard this argument several times before. Someone subject to a RfAr asserts bias in one or more arbitrators.  The arbitrators either claim enough maturity to be able to cope with the fact of previous squabbles or previously expressed bias or (as you do here) the issue of bias is not addressed and instead the arbitrators say what amounts "tough shit, grin and bear it, we're going to judge you bias or no bias".  The problem is what it looks like.  Here it does look as if there is bias.  The words of some of the arbitrators commenting on this very case have the appearance of bias.  For the good of Wikipedia where bias might be thought to exist arbitrators should always recuse.  As a matter of course.  Paul Beardsell 12:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * In any event Raul's words on this page are "negative". He says, paraphrasing, "(1) I refuse your request, (2) I don't care if you do not present a defence, (3) We don't like you.  Up yours!"  Up yours?  Yes!  We all know what "Have a nice day" means when said in a context like that.  Paul Beardsell 13:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you "paraphrasing" a firm reply to turn it into a rude one makes Raul's words rude. If that were valid I could paraphrase your "We all know what "Have a nice day" means when said in a context like that" as "go fuck yourself" and block you for making a personal attack. Only Raul's own words make any difference. Raul was firm. He is not someone to be swayed by tactics. But that does not make him biased or negative. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretend you don't know the amiable Raul. Read his response (not my paraphrase) again - I provided a link.  Think how it would be understood by someone who does not know the characters involved.  Once again:  We all know what "have a nice day" means when said like that.  It really can and often does mean what you say it means.  Everyking says Raul is not being civil.  I say he is likely to be seen to be saying "up yours".  But neither EK nor I are correct:  The man in Wikipedia Street knows exactly what Raul said.  I think he might prefer the words you suggest.  EK knows what Raul said.  I know, you know, everyone knows.  Raul knows.  Paul Beardsell 13:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh it's they have a nice day you don't like, I interpret that as "nice try mate but no go", rather than "up yours". Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, making an ironic point: Am I supposed to say "I don't like ultimatums"?  Or "I never allow myself to be influenced by ultimatums"?  Paul Beardsell 13:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to say what you like. But you point is going over my head. I have no idea what you are trying to convey? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 13:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was responding to your implied threat of a block. The last time you did this, by the way, was when I referred to the Ambi/Grunt allegations against me that no one wants to discuss.  I didn't really interprete your remarks as a threat of an iminent block, more of a "cool it".  But Snowspinner, shooting from the hip, used it as an excuse to block me within minutes.  I had assumed you didn't ask him to block me.  We have a similar situation here:  You allude to the possibility of a block.  I then think every time I hit the save button I will find myself blocked by Snowspinner.  That is why I think Snowspinner's actions are not constructive.  He should do as EK suggests:  He should discuss his proposed blocks beforehand.  He should read the possibility of a block of up to 24 hours not as blanket permission to block for 24 hours on the tiniest excuse.  Paul Beardsell 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not my intention to imply a threat of a block. I was simply trying to point out that putting words into other people's mouths isn't valid. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If what a person says is characterised correctly then it is not called "putting words in their mouth". So your point is circular.  I say I do correctly characterise Raul's words.  You do not interprete them the same way but you never (to my knowledge) accept any criticism of fellow ArbCom members.  Paul Beardsell 15:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My ultimatum point is this: EK did not issue an ultimatum.  But if he did then I suggest you just did also, about my blocking for (not directly) claiming Raul said "go fuck yourself".  You will doubtless say you did not issue an ultimatum.  Fair enough, neither do I think you issued an ultimatum (but I bet Snowspinner did)!  I don't think EK issued an ultimatum either.  Assume good faith.  Paul Beardsell 14:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You've missunderstood my point entirely. Everyking said "if you don't do this then I wont do that" which is an ultimatum wheras I am saying "You are talking rubbish" which isn't. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 15:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Theresa, what you also said was (paraphrasing) "I could interprete that this way and if I did I would block you". It is that that I am identifying as a (potential) ultimatum.  We already know you disagree with me.  Paul Beardsell 15:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if I was saying that, and I wasn't,It isn't an ultimatum. But this is trivial and I'm off now. See you when I get back. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not implying that anyone else had the power to force them to recuse. And if those words aren't negative, then all my comments about Snowspinner have been outright praise. Everyking 09:15, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think having said negative things in the past is grounds for recusal. Having said negative things about the specific issue that the arbitration case is about might be. For instance, I believe Fennec's comment was regarding the Ashlee Simpson issue, which has no bearing on this case. Snowspinner 17:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends on the degree of the negativity, I suppose. Moderate, constructive criticism: I certainly would never want an Arb to recuse over that. But these Arbs have gone well beyond that; they have made it clear that they have a general antipathy for me as an editor. Fennec's remark was simply that I am "a disgrace to Wikipedia". That's a general remark on me as an editor. He's saying he really, really doesn't like me. In what alternate dimension do we consider it legit for Arbs to not recuse after saying such things about the accused party? Everyking 05:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

In the first place, now that this has been reopened, I've concluded there's no way I can have any luck dealing with the ArbCom, simply because of bitter feelings. I believe that when I try to make my own cases I dig myself deeper in a hole because the ArbCom do not like me, do not like the things I have to say and do not like the way I say them. This has been going on for a long time and the ArbCom has always had the same opinion of me. Therefore what I need is an advocate of some kind to help me argue and present evidence. Ideally this should be someone who has good relations with the ArbCom. I also need time. If I get an advocate, I'd like two weeks from that date until any movement on the case starts, so we can prepare; if I don't get an advocate, I'd like a month. Everyking 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The way the arbcom is moving of late, I wouldn't worry too much. Have you requested an advocate at the AMA yet? Snowspinner 03:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, last time I tried that it didn't work. Everyking 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems to me unlikely that you'll find an advocate here. I think I'm the only one on the AMA currently reading or watching this page. And, well, I don't think you want me to advocate for you. Snowspinner 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I'll get better results if the ArbCom makes an official request that someone advocate for me. That's what I'm hoping for. Everyking 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I will request an advocate for you and delay work on the case until you get going with a defense. Fred Bauder 12:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fred. Everyking 13:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to serve as an advocate for him - but what does that entail, exactly? Speaking of which, how do you "request an advocate" :)? Ryan Norton T 08:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

EK and I are discussing possible repesentation in this matter (I responded to Fred's call on the AMA page), but I would encourage RN to contact him so that he can have a choice.Gator1 12:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Can the ArbCom explain to me what exactly I'd need to demonstrate or prove in order to be "acquitted", or at least not punished? Everyking 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of July, 2006 amendment

 * Although I would prefer a much simpler remedy, I can support these sanctions ➥the Epopt 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The other, simpler one that I thought of would be to ban him from everything except the main namespace (articles, but not talk pages) and his own use and talk pages. Raul654 23:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would go even simpler than that ➥the Epopt 05:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would prefer an extension of only one year. Fred Bauder 00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with that (duly adjusted). Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can live with this as well, although given Everyking's inability to learn to behave better, I'm minded towards a complete ban from Wikipedia for a time. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As can I, per my comments below. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do I get an opportunity to argue in my defense? Let's consider a few things:
 * Ashlee articles&mdash;exactly what am I doing there that the ArbCom considers so terrible? I mean, actually look at the articles and their histories and tell me. There's a couple of reverts, but I wasn't the only one reverting, and the situation seems to have settled down now into a compromise, at least a de facto one. Also, there was far more discussion going on than there was reverting&mdash;in fact, if you just look at the histories, you'll see there was hardly any reverting at all. There was no "revert war" in any meaningful sense&mdash;the only thing close to one happened on an article about a Jessica Simpson song, but again in that case, too, the situation seems to have settled down into a de facto compromise. To sanction someone for this is utterly, entirely absurd. Not only was the whole situation a pretty minor one (not even close to the explosion of conflict the articles saw 18 months ago), it seems to have settled down anyway, and I wasn't even the one with the aggressive stance&mdash;I was taking the defensive stance.
 * Talk pages&mdash;the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right? People would block me before and tell me to take it to the admin's talk page. So I do that, and this is what I get? Why was that exemption created to begin with, if I was just going to get attacked for making use of it? Not to mention there isn't much of this going on anyway. The last case was regarding EM threatening a user who was obviously acting in good faith, but was younger than most of us and was a little confused about how to do some technical things.
 * No credit&mdash;where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me? I have always strictly observed the AN/I prohibition. I haven't been blocked by anyone for any reason in several months. To hear Raul tell it, I've been constantly violating the ruling, which is the exact opposite of what I've actually been doing.
 * Ruling consistency&mdash;Ashlee articles pertained to EK1; this is EK3. How can you fit anything pertaining to EK1 under a revision of EK3?
 * The opposing party&mdash;Who is the opposing party here, anyway? It appears to be none other than the ArbCom itself&mdash;in that case, how can I possibly get a fair hearing from them? Or is it whoever sent that private complaint? Did that person actually want this taken to arbitration? Isn't it important, for reasons of transparent process, to have an accuser in public&mdash;not secretly in e-mail? Is there any precedent for that at all?
 * Involved party?&mdash;hey, did anyone think to consult EM about this stuff that is apparently being done on his behalf? What does he think? Does he actually want me taken to arbitration? Previously he expressed a lot of reluctance to even take me to RfC, and that was at the peak of the conflict, some time ago.


 * I personally feel the above points are pretty important. Everyking 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say you have exhausted the committee's patience. I'm going to respond, very briefly, to some of the points you raise. Point 1 - Despite your attempt to spin it otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that led to the first two Everyking arbitration cases, and as I just said, our patience with you has run out. Point 2 - As I said to you on my talk page just a few days ago, that exception was *not* created to allow you to move your harassment from the ANI to individual users' talk pages. Point 3 - I drive to work every day and avoid the temptation to run over those skateboarders who are always on Delaware Avenue. If tomorrow I were to run them over, am I to tell the judge to consider all the times I went to work and didn't run the over? Ha, no. Point 4 - Wikilawyering; our clarification applies to the series of cases, not any one in particular. Point 5 - No opposing party is necessary. Point 6 - yes. Raul654 16:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've exhausted your patience; you've exhausted mine, too, but what am I gonna do about it?


 * I will post thorough evidence about this if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
 * It's not harassment, it's criticism of admin actions&mdash;the exact thing the exemption was created to allow me to continue doing in a restricted space. Moreover, I have actually done little of this&mdash;once every few weeks, maybe? I'll go through and post all the examples I can find, again if the ArbCom will agree to read and consider it honestly.
 * I haven't run anybody over, to go with your analogy; you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling. You've accused me of misbehaving on Ashlee articles, which if true isn't covered by the ruling (and wouldn't even be covered by the old ruling, because even if you guys hadn't freed me from it after two months, it would still have expired long ago) and complaining on admin talk pages, which is protected by the ruling.
 * Does "wikilawyering" mean "a point of procedure that would benefit the accused and therefore will be disregarded in this case"?
 * I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge.
 * Notably you didn't ask his opinion before starting this thing. In any case, let's now wait and see if he has something to add about this. Everyking 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all familiar with this stage of dispute resolution; that said, I think this discussion is appropriate.
 * Everyking, you reverted me three times at Ashlee Simpson (including an edit that had absolutely nothing to do with removing content)   and once at Pieces of Me . The main reasons I chose not to keep restoring my edits was because a) it's better to discuss a dispute rather than repeatedly revert the other party, b) I knew the history of these articles and wanted to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate like it did before, and c) because of the reverts I just listed, and the dispute 18 months ago, I had a feeling you'd keep reverting me. That's one of the reasons why I didn't file an RFC on your behaviour, the others being that I wanted to keep the discussions focussed on the articles and that there wasn't a second party around who was involved enough to be able to certify an RFC. I didn't once consider the possibility that you would follow me across other pages and revert me wholesale (These Boots Are Made for Walkin' (Jessica Simpson song)), which is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. It also indicates your statement about "taking the defensive stance", if true originally, no longer holds much water. Not that I don't care about your "defensive" behaviour either: telling me "it [the info you remove] will be restored, naturally" (Talk:Ashlee Simpson) and comparing me to a film villain (Talk:Pieces of Me) is not appreciated.
 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 states "Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it"; with regard to, I don't believe that you did so. Tcatron registered here almost a year ago; as can be seen at user talk:Tcatron565, he's made many edits that violate the guidelines and policies, and has a history of incivility. I'll leave the nitty gritty out for brevity's sake, but I should note that I wasn't even the first user to introduce the possibility of a block to him. I admit I've considered just giving up explaining the policies and guidelines to him, but that's only because comments like "it seems like everytime I make a wrong move, you're all up in my face! ... when I do something wrong, wait for 4 days, then tell me" , along with his tendency to continue editing as he was, indicate that such efforts would be pointless. If you're still wondering why I told him he may be blocked, I should refer you to the case of the IP editor , a seemingly good faith user who nevertheless edited in violation of the policies in guidelines without discussion and was consequently blocked for a week not too long ago. I'm certain that I would have told Tcatron the same thing if I wasn't an admin, so the comment about me "throwing my weight around" as an admin is hardly accurate. Lastly, I am well aware that admins involved in disputes with other users (such as the one I had with Tcatron) aren't supposed to block any of the other parties, and if I thought a block was absolutely necessary in this case I would have started a discussion at WP:ANI. I feel that your comments regarding this were written with the main intention of antagonising me rather than anything to do with Tcatron. Extraordinary Machine 20:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't have access to the arbitrators' mailing list, so I don't really know exactly what they are thinking. For all I know what they are saying in private and in public are completely different. But all I can do is focus on what gets written on this page. So let me directly discuss each of the things Raul calls remedies:


 * 1) This proposes banning me for two weeks for alleged "recent offenses". What recent offenses? Raul has so far only pointed to one somewhat uncivil comment I made about an admin warning I thought was too harsh. Yeah, I shouldn't have used the tone I did, but it was in the midst of a more general conflict that had led to a deepening of animosity on both sides; it didn't come out of the blue. To ban someone for even a single day for a marginally uncivil comment that they've since apologized for seems highly draconian&mdash;to ban for two weeks is so far overboard it almost seems insane. Aren't blocks supposed to be staggered somehow, anyway? You don't generally just jump right into such severe blocks for minor offenses. I've never even been blocked for a single 24 hour period in two and a half years on Wikipedia&mdash;every one of my blocks has been reconsidered or undone for some reason. Furthermore, as I've said before, I haven't been blocked at all in the last few months. So even if you think I'm in the wrong, does it make sense to jump from blocks lasting a few hours in the relatively distant past to two weeks now?
 * 2) Rather than try to overreach in arguing this one, considering the depth of the ArbCom's hostile feeling toward me right now, I propose that the ArbCom change this so as to give me an automatic appeal in November of this year (something I have long pleaded for), but a formal duration until November 2007 in case of failure.
 * 3) Again&mdash;for what? What did I do wrong here? I participated in some minor reverting and bickering that has since settled down, and I made several concessions and compromises (and expressed far more willingness to compromise throughout than my opponent did&mdash;in fact I think all the compromises were made on my initiative).
 * 4) I don't have much of an argument for this one; the ArbCom and I simply don't agree about what constitutes harassment and what constitutes reasonable criticism. I will just hope that this penalty is never abusively applied. Everyking 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

General responses, since this section is a bit too muddled for an indented reply to make sense any more: Everyking, I think your question above as to the definition of "wikilawyering" above (snide musings aside) is answered by your point directly above it, "you haven't pointed to anything I've done that violated the ruling". Also, "the ArbCom ruling specifically granted me the right to discuss admin actions on the relevant admin talk pages. Am I now going to be punished for exercising that right?" and "where is the credit for actually following the ruling as it was spelled out for me?" and "Who is the opposing party here, anyway?" and "I asked you to provide a precedent for this, and also to explain the inherent unfairness of having the same people as both accuser, prosecutor and judge." are all good examples of wikilawyering. Why were you given any of these restrictions in the first place, Everyking? If you can't answer that then I'll support every measure proposed. It was to stop your harassment. When I am faced with the fact that you've used administrators' talk pages for harassment, despite our obvious desire that you cease harassment, I am forced to conclude that you are violating the ruling. I'm weary of it: bans from AN/ANI and from criticism other than on admins' talk pages were meant to get it through to you to stop harassment. If your response is to continue to do so through the only avenue still open after the last case, then the general ban for a short time period is looking reasonable. Was really what you consider reasonable criticism where I see harassment? Note: if the answer is really "no, and I've apologized" don't tell me you haven't violated our decision again. That you have never violated even the letter of the ruling is patently false anyway, as we found out months ago,, , , and also on the occasion where I specifically pointed out to you your violation of the ruling (I am sure you recall, or maybe you decided to make a bold statement like that with no factual backing or double checking?). Despite your efforts to the contrary, you don't have the option to say: "I forgot. I'm sorry." and go on you merry way, only to "forget" again. If I can have no confidence that you cannot stop in the future, I can't object to the three proposals related to it. As for the pop culture remedy, I don't find that issue particularly pressing or interesting right now. Dmcdevit·t 06:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Although maybe out of place, "pop music" articles should be better defined. A lot of people see pop music as different things, and it's a little ambiguous. Esteffect 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We generally expect people to use their common sense. Are you suggesting we credit our users with too much?
 * FWIW, I'm happy with the proposals that we've worked out.
 * James F. (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Credit me with a little, then. Just a tiny bit! Everyking 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is going a little light on Everyking. On top of his repeated and terminal lack of clue, he has been publicly and privately encouraging of the Brandt/WR harrassment of contributors that he has taken a dislike to. This has stemmed so far as arguing for the unbanning of the guy who is making death threats against Kelly Martin.

Everyking was once a useful user, but has very long ago ceased to do anything that could not be done by the newest average newbie. I fail to see any noticeable benefit in having his poisonous presence on this site in the foreseeable future, and suggest either a ban limiting him to the article namespace or a complete ban from the site for at least several months. Rebecca 05:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user; I only argued for a more thoughtful approach to the situation, which I do routinely in these cases. And it is plain silly to say my contributions now are less than they ever were in the past&mdash;all a person has to do is just browse through them. Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. Everyking 08:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is simply untrue that I argued for the unbanning of that user No, that's simply a hair-splitting distinction without difference: I don't see how you can say an apology would not be acceptable in case of a threat like this...To just lock out a human being from contributing here for the rest of his life on the basis of one stupid comment that he probably regrets is the height of overreaction, says Everyking about a death threat, and when the text of the threat is presented to him, responds with :The letter gives me further doubts about the user, but nevertheless I think you took the wrong approach .  Using the reaction to a death threat as Yet Another Opportunity to get in digs at admins is certainly a new low.
 * Even if you only look at major content work done in the last few days, there's considerable work expanding and referencing articles on important politicians from Guinea-Bissau and Malawi. And you, of course, are the only one who can do that, being uniquely invaluable and all. --Calton | Talk 08:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What I said was all clearly contingent on the response of the user in question. My opinion was that a person should be given a chance to be reasonable, to apologize, and that an automatic, indefinite block with no possibility of future redemption was too harsh. I didn't say the user should simply be unblocked; I said more consideration and discussion with the user in question was warranted before reaching a final judgment.


 * And no, I'm not the only one who can do that (although the point is meaningless); I was just trying to refute the claim that I no longer do substantial work with some recent examples. Rebecca has been saying negative and untrue things about me for more than 18 months now, ever since the initial Ashlee dispute, when she tried to take the case to arbitration almost immediately after it developed. Everyking 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this latest decision has already been made, but I'd still like to throw in some comments ... I recently had a run-in with Everyking and he was chastising me for indefinitely blocking a user who had made death threats, saying it was "too harsh". Here are the relevant diffs:     -- Cyde↔Weys  18:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyking Appeal request (January 2007)

 * see Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

I would like to request an appeal of my previous ruling at this time. I have now been under penalties from this ruling for 14 months. I have not been blocked by anyone since the ArbCom issued its two-week block in July, nor has anyone warned me or complained about me since that time (to the best of my recollection). I have carefully avoided conflict for several months and have put the incidents of the past, as well as the overzealousness of tone I sometimes used in those incidents, far behind me, while still remaining as active an editor as before. I don't believe there is any reason to think I would be brought to the ArbCom's attention again if these penalties were lifted, even if the ArbCom still regards the penalties to have been justified when they were initially applied. Everyking 10:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What in particular do you wish to be able to do? Return to WP:AN? Return to harassing admins? Not have to familiarize yourself with a situation before commenting on it? Return to pestering and being pestered by Phil? Nothing in the remedies applied to your case prevents you from continuing to do what you do well. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for raising that. You probably know that I disagree with the way some of your questions are framed, so it is difficult for me to respond to them individually. Yes, I would like to comment on AN occasionally, but that isn't what's really important. The main thing is that I do not want to be constantly under sanctions, an inch away from a ban; above all else it is a matter of plain self-respect that I don't want to work on this site for hours every day while being subject to a list of onerous restrictions. I feel the penalties are needless and would like to return to having the status of a normal editor. It seems to me that it should be a simple matter for the ArbCom to reimpose the sanctions for the remaining time if it thinks I am doing what it does not want me to do. Everyking 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a simple matter. It is a lot of gut-wrenching work. We don't have time to watch Ashlee Simpson or closely follow whatever you are doing on the noticeboards, so the effect will be that you would be free to do whatever you wanted. We would only get involved after a general outcry regarding your behavior. If you want to try it fine, but understand Everyking 4 is not going to be fun for you or us. Fred Bauder 19:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't agree with that. You know there are several people who have strong feelings against me and aren't going to hesitate to bring me to your attention if they think I'm causing even the slightest of problems. There would be no need for a new case, anyway; you have already acted with great flexibility in amending rulings, so all that should be required in case of a problem is to reapply the EK3 penalties. Everyking 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the restrictions are working fine as is; Wikipedia's interests seem more important than your "self-respect" in this regard. Of the remedies, the bans against using AN/I and harassing comment on other admins expire in November, and don't really have any bearing on the actual editorial work you're doing; the one regarding Snowspinner and the one requiring you to do what you should have been doing in the first place -- familiarizing yourself with a situation before commenting upon it -- aren't likely to be lifted at all. Your probation on pop music articles seem to me to be the reason you haven't run into any problems in the last few months, and that's a good thing. So i don't see any benefit to Wikipedia to lifting any of these sanctions. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify some things. There were no real problems surrounding pop music articles in the first place when that penalty was added; the issue that led to that remedy was associated with my admonishment of an admin who had in my opinion treated a very young, good faith user much too harshly. That admin and I were simultaneously bickering over a content issue related to pop music (mild arguing, not revert warring, and it fizzled out after a while), and that was taken as a reason to expand the ruling to include the pop music remedy, for reasons that may make sense to the ArbCom, but not to me (even if you think I was wrong to admonish the admin in question, what on earth does that have to do with pop music? This was never explained). Therefore it is inexplicable to me that that very pointless ruling could have prevented any problems; in fact I have gone on editing pop music articles fairly regularly and have encountered the same amount of trouble as beforehand&mdash;virtually none. It occurs to me that your attribution of this status quo situation to the ArbCom's penalty belies a poor understanding of the ruling and the issues that led to it, and in that case it is incongruous that an arbitrator would back the ruling barring me from commenting on actions without familiarization (although I did not do that even before the ruling was issued) but would himself comment without familiarization in responding to an appeal request about that very ruling.


 * It is said that the restrictions are "working"; well, yes, they are in the sense that I have decided to abide by them and none of the alleged previously existing problems now exist. However, might my cooperation be reasonably interpreted as a sign that the restrictions are not necessary? It is also said that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own; I agree with this wholeheartedly. I question, however, how the ruling can be perceived as being in Wikipedia's interest, particularly at this point in time. From the ArbCom's perspective, would the ruling ever cease to be in Wikipedia's interest? Several months have passed without incident and it is still "not in Wikipedia's interest" for me to have my various freedoms restored. Will a point ever be reached when it will once again be in Wikipedia's interest to let me have those freedoms again? Why not leave the penalties in place eternally? I will continue to edit, which the ArbCom apparently approves of, while remaining under restrictions because the ArbCom feels uncomfortable with everything else I do, indefinitely&mdash;the ArbCom have can have it both ways while I continue to work in an environment that rewards my work by letting me continue wearing my stripes and shackles. Might the ArbCom pause to ponder the inevitable frustration on the other side of the situation? Everyking 07:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We have talked this over at some length considering a number of options. Status quo seems to be the consensus. Fred Bauder 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At what point will the ArbCom be willing to remove or reduce the penalties, then? Everyking 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That will happen November, 2007. I would be reluctant to ever take you off probation with respect to pop music articles, but find your input regarding administrative actions valuable, although obviously you need to carefully inform yourself and use more diplomacy than you have in the past. However, I 'm afraid my view is a minority view. Fred Bauder 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's interesting&mdash;to ever take me off probation on pop music articles? To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years (since EK2, circa April 2005). I have edited those articles peacefully for a vastly longer period of time than it ordinarily takes someone to, for example, qualify as a trustworthy admin candidate. And yet you still perceive some problem that makes me some kind of perpetual threat? Honestly, I find that bizarre. Why, why are the arbitrators still holding such an old dispute against me? Furthermore, how could you apply a permanent remedy&mdash;are you going to reopen the case in November to amend it in spite of having no apparent justification for doing so, with no controversy having erupted in ages? Even considering all that the ArbCom has done to me before, that would be a truly remarkable thing. Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "To the best of my recollection, nobody has accused me of causing problems on any pop music articles in almost two years" - Your memory has failed you Raul654 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In November, 2007, most of the restrictions expire. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, see, I didn't realize this, but if the ruling is read literally there is actually no limit on that probation and therefore, I suppose, it will expire only upon my death or upon the ArbCom's own decision to lift it. The ArbCom is much more clever than me. There is still so much I don't understand, though. Why does the probation even exist, let alone eternally? At least in the case of the commenting about admins stuff we can agree that a controversy did exist, something was happening&mdash;but in the case of the pop music ruling, there was no controversy at that time (and had not been for more than a year previously) and that probation was tacked on for no apparent reason. It is beyond bizarre that I am subject to an eternal penalty for participation in a controversy that did not exist. Guys, at least explain some of this stuff. Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the consensus among the arbitration committee is that while we welcome Everyking's newfound good behavior and do appreciate it, we do not think he's reformed. If we modify the remedies, we think it's quite likely he'll go back to his old behavior, and the risk of this far outweighs any potential benefits to EK of modifying the decision. Raul654 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What, if not a change in behavior, does the ArbCom consider necessary to deem a person "reformed"? Furthermore, I will raise the very simple and logical point I raised earlier: if the ArbCom doesn't like whatever I do after the penalties are lifted, why not just promptly impose them again? The argument that this is difficult for the ArbCom to do doesn't hold water. Hell, you could say in advance that any reimposed penalties would be more severe than the old ones, to serve as additional deterence. Finally, the penalties will expire in November anyway&mdash;why is lifting them now worse than lifting them then? Everyking 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are still in very deep denial about your past behavior is troubling, to say the least. Raul654 05:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So is this a thought crime kind of thing? No matter what I do, what I think will continue to be used against me? I'm not even sure you understand what my position is on the various controversies of the past. I've never seen any indication from the ArbCom that it was even paying attention when I explained my positions repeatedly and at length. Everyking 05:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was listening, but you wore everyone out. Fred Bauder 06:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I said less, you would have paid more attention? Everyking 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I dunno about Fred, but I certainly would have. It's how this medium works -- a lot of us (a majority? who knows) glaze over when confronted with  prolixity. A short, pithy argument is vastly more effective than four paragraphs saying the same thing. (I'm sure there are people whose gut reaction is "wow, that's a lot of words, they must have some important content in them", but the only ones I've encountered with that opinion are the ones writing the long screeds.)  --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You want pithy? I thought one was supposed to make a thorough argument with extensive support from logic and evidence. I could've just said: "Hey, I didn't do that stuff", but I don't think that would've accomplished anything more. The point remains, though, that I am skeptical that the ArbCom understands my positions, and if that is the case it is preposterous for Raul to tell me I am in "very deep denial". If the ArbCom's understanding of the past controversies ranges from superficial to nonexistent, and if it has ignored the arguments I've made in my defense, how much sense does it make to claim I am the one in denial here?
 * We have not ignored your defenses; we have rejected them as being patently untrue. As for your supposed thoughtcrime - if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions if you thought we weren't looking. Hence, our desire to keep the remedies exactly as they are.
 * Furthermore, as to your self-serving claim that there are no reasons for the new pop-article probation, it came about as a result of your behavior towards Extraordinary Machine. And while I have no doubt that as you read that sentence, you were no doubt thinking of ways to - once again - to deny the reality of your behavior, I will not be giving them any heed. Suffice it to say, I have once already decided to take EM's claims as being true and rejected your explanations thereof. I suspect the other arbitrators feel the same way. Raul654 23:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, well, I will respond regardless, perhaps out of an idealistic belief that that is possible you'll listen even though you say you're plugging your fingers in your ears (of course, you did that at the time all this happened, too, when you were supposed to be weighing the arguments and such), or at least the other arbitrators might. EM and I were arguing about a pop music issue, yes; as you can see, I brought that up earlier in this discussion. However, for any penalty to be applied on the basis of that dispute is absurd&mdash;read the talk pages, for instance, or look at the page histories. In the previous dispute, which brought about EK1, the main argument against me was that I revert warred frequently against a large number of people. In this case with EM, there was little reverting from either side (and he was reverting more than me in any case, because he reverted some anons several times); the dispute was concentrated on the talk pages, where he eventually agreed to remove only uncited information. He removed a couple things then and went elsewhere, and the dispute ended. The dispute was very different from the earlier one because: A) I hardly reverted him at all, and B) it was just me and him (and a few anons, who were restoring content against EM's wishes), not me against a large group. This is not the kind of dispute that can be reasonably characterized as a controversy, or as anything particularly serious at all. Certainly the ArbCom would never dream about issuing a ruling for such a small dispute ordinarily, and I find it hard to believe even my worst enemy (if properly informed) could find me at fault for any of my conduct there. In fact, as I also noted earlier, the key issue had nothing to do with pop music: I admonished EM for issuing a warning to a third party that I felt was too harsh. It was apparently just the association of that EK-EM exchange with the simultaneous content dispute that caused the ArbCom to impose the ruling, because it was the same two people involved. You say my arguments were patently untrue; well, show some evidence that anything I've said here is untrue.


 * My final point concerns this claim: "if you cannot recognize that your past actions were in the wrong (actions which you, to this very day on this very page, claim were above board) then there is no reason to believe you would not go back to those very same actions". Which actions do I defend, Raul? Can you tell me which, and can you tell me what my reasoning is? Can you identify the mistakes I've pointed out and expressed regret over? I don't believe you can, because you have no real understanding of any of this; as far as I can tell, your viewpoint is merely a mixture of the unfiltered claims of my opponents with some assumptions of your own. Furthermore, your statement is simply illogical: there is good reason I would not do the things the ArbCom has penalized me for if the restriction is removed, despite my views (which you do not appear to be at all informed about in any case). The reasons are simply prudence and pragmatism. I maintain both that I was fundamentally right and that I have learned from the mistakes I made during the old conflicts, and the foremost evidence with which I support the latter claim is the absence of anything the ArbCom finds objectionable in almost six months. Everyking 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyway, could the other arbitrators address the "thought crime" issue above? It appears Raul is saying that in order to get the restrictions lifted it's not enough for me to just not do what the ArbCom told me not to do in its ruling; the mere fact that I don't believe what the ArbCom believes about the issues means I have not "reformed". Of course it would be easy for me to simply lie and say a bunch of things the ArbCom would like to hear; I suppose I could've got the restrictions lifted ages ago, maybe even avoided ever having restrictions imposed to begin with, if I had done that. But I will not do that: to change my behavior to be more cautious and pragmatic is something I can do that's completely compatible with my principles, indeed it's positive self-improvement, but lying to suit somebody else's fiction is a completely different thing. Everyking 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fred, it appears from the plain language of the amendment filed in July 2006 that the probation for pop music articles does not have a specified expiry date (in contrast to the administrative restrictions). Would you and the other arbitrators like to clarify this? Thatcher131 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That is certainly my intention. Everyking's editwarring over Ashlee Simpson ought to be a once in a life-time experience. Fred Bauder 19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No clarification is necessary - it is indeed indefinite. Raul654 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I assume that you agree with Fred's apparent opinion that it should never be lifted under any circumstances whatsoever? And please address the questions I asked you earlier. Everyking 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of all the remedies, I think the pop-article probation is probably the least essential. That said, I will reiterate my previous statement that I do not believe any of the remedies should be lifted (or allowed to expire) until you can demonstrate to my satisfaction that you would not go back to your old behavior. Your recent behavior is encouraging, but insufficient - especially in light of your impenitence. Raul654 23:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially&mdash;what does that mean? Does that mean that, if more time passed without incident, the ArbCom would eventually relent? Or do you think it should never be lifted as long as I'm committing the thought crime of disagreeing with the ArbCom about what happened in the past? Everyking 00:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was your repeated "thought crimes" (if you want to call them that) of repeatedly attacking other admins that brought the action on you in the first place. You are now making attacks on the ArbCom.  How has your behavior modified since you were originally placed on probation?  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No complaints have been made about me and no penalties have been applied. (Your comment belies a misunderstanding of the situation in any case, because the probation was a secondary element and does not apply to commenting about admins.) This is because I have avoided controversy and done nothing to rouse anyone's ire. As you can see, the ArbCom itself acknowledges that much, so it is strange to me that you are disputing it. I do not claim that criticizing admins was being treated as a thought crime; I claim that holding a particular opinion about past events is being treated as one. Are you confusing these on purpose to try to discredit my arguments? Everyking 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyking, if your edits have truly been constructive, then the remedies of the ArbCom decision should not affect you in any way, except for the article ban, which was placed for good reason. Your contributions are respected, and please understand that these remedies are preventative in nature and not punitive - they are designed to prevent further disruption.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no article ban, so it must not have been "placed for good reason". I've already responded to the "this shouldn't affect you" argument early in this discussion. Please familiarize yourself with the situation before commenting. Everyking 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. I don't know how you believe that reasoning personally, but I do not find it compelling.  With all due respect, your self-esteem is a secondary concern.  The integrity of Wikipedia comes first.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't I respond to the exact same thing earlier in this discussion? I specifically addressed the issue about the ruling supposedly being in Wikipedia's interest, and agreed that Wikipedia's interests are more important than my own. You do not seem to have even read the discussion on this page, let alone researched the long history behind it all. Everyking 01:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I read it. I just fail to find the arguments compelling.  Really - shouldn't you go edit some articles or something?  This discussion seems to be doing nothing but wasting time.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken a break from editing to argue with the arbitrators; I can find the time to respond to them, and to you, without cutting back on editing. I also don't agree that this whole discussion was a waste of time, because I gained significant understanding about the ArbCom's views&mdash;most importantly that they want me to renounce my opinions in order to have my restrictions lifted. Previously I had believed that simply doing what they said and not getting into any controversies would satisfy them, or at least I had thought there was a pretty good chance that would satisfy them. Everyking 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noting that my opinion does matter, I think that what little Ive come across of your behaviour has been good and well. however, I also fail to see instances where these remedies have adversely affected you (maybe I just haven't run across it.)  Historically good conduct has shortened or softened remedies, but not have them dropped entirely.  The problem lies in the fact that this is an entirely subjective matter, and depends on the opinions of the Arbitrators and their willingness to revisit the case. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's make this easy.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

 * Reject. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. Raul654 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. FloNight 21:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept to permit occasional well-considered comments by Everyking on policy questions and administrative actions. Fred Bauder 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I do not believe that we should revisit prior decisions without clear and compelling reasons.
 * Accept to at least re-consider some of the remedies, per Fred. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reject. Charles Matthews 20:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyking appeal request (May 2007)
It has been four months since my last appeal, and I want to try again. I will try to keep this reasonably brief.

I will not cause problems if released from the restrictions currently placed on me. That is a certainty and a pledge. The restrictions were first imposed in November 2005 (based on events which had occurred not in the immediate past, but in the spring/summer of 2005), with subsequent amendments in December 2005 and July 2006. Since the time of the last amendment, no one has, to the best of my recollection, complained about me or sought for any action to be taken against me (with the exception of the September 2006 desysopping, which was based on an off-wiki comment I made). This is, therefore, 10 months in which my behavior has been uncontroversial.

I am very conscious of mistakes I made that lead to the ruling, and my awareness of these mistakes has helped keep me free of controversy during the subsequent period. I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama developing on the AN pages. At the time, I didn't worry about drama, and this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive; from it came only incivility and the deepening of disputes. It has been a long time since then, and I am now quite conscious of the importance of keeping a difference of opinion from reaching a boil and not allowing personality conflicts to grow and overshadow substantive issues.

In February I underwent an unsuccessful RfA, and I have spent a lot of time studying it. It's clear that I have a lot of critics, and I want to prove them wrong; I want to move forward without dragging old controversies along with me and help the project in more respects than I currently can. The restrictions keep me locked to the most unpleasant events of my editing career and don't allow the past to become history. Everyking 04:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see you've moved beyond your previous (Bush-eque) claim that you've never done anything wrong, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. It shows that you are making progress.
 * I am concerned, however, by your recent defense of Chahax. Chahax used his IP address to make ridiculous pro-creationism edits, and then used his main Chahax to put the Intelligent design on featured article review, claiming it was unstable (not in small part because *he* was the one doing it). Using checkuser, I caught him and blocked him. You came to my talk page to defend him, saying "Chahax seems to have explained himself adequately; however, I suspect that isn't enough for you", to which I replied "You have an interesting definition of "explained himself adequately" - he admits he made the biased edits in question, and denies he did anything wrong." I find it disturbing that either (1) you apparently consider his actions acceptable, or (2) you did not properly investigate his actions beforehand (for which you have previously been sanctioned). Worse, it is this very behavior - leaping to the defense of obvious problem users - that got you banned from the administrator's noticeboard. For the record, Chahax later turned up on two attack sites (Righttorace and WikipediaReview), in a discovery institute blog and a Christian Science Montior article describing how hard it is for anti-science crusaders to put misinformation into our articles. You do not seem to have come to terms with your propensity to leap to the defense of obvious problem users, which in effect, makes you their enabler. I therefore see ample evidence for your continued ban from the administrator's noticeboard, from critizing other admins, 'etc. Raul654 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Except in heinous cases, I believe in giving users the benefit of the doubt and second chances. Chahax presented what seemed to be a sympathetic case, and moreover you had not just blocked him for an initial period to see if he would get the message, but indefinitely. We have plenty of admins who take hard lines against users, and I try to help mitigate that tendency by acting as a voice for fairness. In no sense do I try to be anyone's enabler; to the extent that they are doing anything wrong I oppose that and try to get them to correct themselves. You will notice in the case of Chahax I proposed to him that he not nominate the article in question again, and instead propose nominating it on talk. In this sense I was trying to get him to replace a behavior that was causing a problem with an alternative that would probably be uncontroversial, while still allowing him to speak his views about the article. Everyking 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss to understand how you can claim Chahax presented a sympathetic case. At the time you came to his defense, were you fully aware of the all of his actions, as required of you by the arbitration decision? And, assuming you were, do you consider his actions - seriously biased editing, sockpuppetry, starting a featured article review under false pretenses, et cetera - to be acceptable?
 * To be frank, I'm seeing eerie parallels between this case and previous cases where you jumped to the defense of problem users: Skyring, Hollow Wilerding, and all the others whose names I forget. Why shouldn't we believe that you are simply saying what you think we want to hear, so that we will drop the sanctions, and then you can go back to your old behavior? Your actions of three weeks ago do not seem to coincide with what you are saying now. Raul654 04:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Chahax argued that he was not concealing his use of an anon account and that he was not therefore guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. I found that reasonably convincing. I do not agree with his edits about intelligent design, but the ones I saw (from his IP address) were not appalling, ban-worthy POV pushing (examples, ), and I say that as an atheist. A short block to get a message across may have been in order, but not an indefinite one.
 * I'm not aware that I was ever sanctioned for defense of alleged problem users, or that the ArbCom feels it is objectionable to do what I have done in those cases. I feel what I have said on this subject is consistent; what I said to you in my initial reply was the same thing I have always maintained about my attempts to intervene in these problem cases. Everyking 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Before this is rejected, if that is to be its fate, let me make a further plea. Fred accuses me of "inappropriate agitation" and Raul accuses me of supporting "problem users". To the extent that I have been engaged in anything that could be remotely described as "agitation", it has been infrequent and uncontroversial, for example my defense of the existing RfA format on the RfA talk page recently. Nobody seems to have any problem with me weighing in on these issues, except perhaps the ArbCom (although it has never said so in a ruling). Some people disagree with me, of course, but no one accuses me of disruption or agitation. It follows that if my restrictions were lifted or eased, I might do much the same on the AN pages: express my views in an uncontroversial manner. Why would a person think that, although I seem to cause no controversy whatsoever on other Wikipedia namespace pages, if allowed onto the AN pages I would be disruptive? It seems much more reasonable to assume I would behave consistently across these pages.

One factor that is being ignored is the specific set of circumstances that led to the ruling in the first place. In every single topic I ever discussed on the AN pages, I was responding to the actions or suggestions of others. What sort of things was I responding to? In the time period in question, spring/summer 2005, there was a consistent trend by some admins to treat other users extremely poorly. The sort of issue involved would be something like an admin blocking a productive user for having a user name vaguely similar to that of a so-called troll, accompanied by taunting of the blocked user; moreover, upon investigation, one would find that the so-called troll who was allegedly behind the blocked account was actually blocked on some charge about as baseless as the one previously described. This kind of stuff drove me to extremes, no doubt about it, and I don't defend that&mdash;but the whole matter is still being understood out of context, even two years after the initial events took place. Furthermore, after it became clear I was causing the temperature to rise unacceptably, I refrained from getting involved in any squabbles on the page for several months, until a minor dispute over an unrelated issue caused the past events to be brought before the ArbCom. I received not a shred of credit for avoiding disputes over that length of time from the ArbCom, nor any acknowledgement whatsoever that the events on which the ruling was based had taken place so far in the past that they would ordinarily never be considered grounds for opening a case.

My point, however, is that this trend that upset me so badly no longer really exists. These days, if you go to the noticeboards, you generally find people talking about controversial blocks before making them&mdash;the exact thing I spent so much time and energy two years insisting that people do. Blocks, even when excessively harsh, are generally based in some serious need to correct a user's behavior; they aren't often based in imaginary connections and tortured policy interpretations. The normal course of actions on the noticeboards now have enough in common with my own views that I would have little cause to vociferously object to them even if I lacked any restraint at all.

Finally, regarding the complaint that I defend "problem users", to the extent that I do so it is simply based on my desire to see users treated fairly and for them to be integrated into the community (when they are not already), because I believe in a Wikipedia that is inclusive of contributors, the same spirit behind our offer to the world for anyone to edit. I do not enable bad behavior and I would never want that; it would not make the slightest bit of sense for me to work on building Wikipedia every single day of my life and simultaneously try to undermine it by helping newbies disrupt the project. It is worth noting that another admin reduced the blocked on Chahax (the case Raul cites against me above, in which he imposed the initial block) from indefinite to 30 days, which I find to be a reasonable solution. Opposing the most extreme penalties does not mean trying to give these "problem users" a blank check to do whatever, and I am tired of being painted with that brush. Everyking 04:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment
(If I'm allowed). "I will not cause problems"; "a pledge"; "I am very conscious of mistakes I made"; "I believe I was responsible for a lot of unnecessary drama..."; "this was a serious flaw in my approach that was counter-productive"; "I am now quite conscious of the importance...".

You know, wikipedians don't do mea culpa very well. Face matters. Can't we give some credit here. I've disagreed with this contributor on just about everything, and I'm vaugly aware of some of the problems. But we give useless trolls who contribute nothing the benefit of the doubt, we unblock vandals just to see if it will work, even Danny Brandt gets another shot. Why not here? Is there not at least some chance this is genuine? Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? Perhaps arbcom are aware of things I'm not, in which case ignore me, but otherwise, why not? --Docg 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure he'll still have views that will annoy some people, yes he'll probably defend stuff we don't like. And? - that's the whole point. That's what got him banned from ANI in the first place, and prohibited from criticizing other administrators actions. You admit he will probably go back to the behavior that got him sanctioned (for good reason), and you don't see a problem with that? Frankly, I can see lots of reasons to keep the sanctions up, and very, very little benefit that could come from removing them. Raul654 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that was what got me banned from those pages. My understanding was that the ArbCom objected to my expression of views in a way it considered disruptive (and I concede that the way I expressed things at that time was sometimes disruptive), not to the views themselves. I'm not sure I would even still be contributing if I believed the ArbCom sanctioned me purely because of my views. Everyking 03:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You were sanctioned for two reasons: (1) Because you repeatedly antagonized administrators about their actions (with such regularity that others turned it into a drinking game), and (2) it quickly became apparent from the ensuing discussion that you often did so with little (if any) understanding of the facts that led to those actions. Raul654 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Clerk note
 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking
 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2
 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
 * Disposition of January 2007 appeal
 * Newyorkbrad 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that only the restrictions imposed in Everyking 3 are still in effect. Thatcher131 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As it currently stands, appeal fails 1-7. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/7/1/0)

 * Decline. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Recuse. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Paul August &#9742; 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. I see no reason to revisit the existing conditions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline Fred Bauder 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I voted decline because Everyking's sustained and continuing pattern of inappropriate agitation on policy pages and with respect to administrative actions is incompatible with either administration status or constructive contribution to policy determinations. Fred Bauder 19:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline FloNight 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. The status quo is an improvement, by a long chalk, on past statuses. Charles Matthews 19:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. Raul654 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Decline. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Remedy expiration

 * Archived from Requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a question regarding a detail from the case Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. It is a minor point, but I figured it would be better to put it here than on a talk page, where it might be overlooked. The arbitrators decided in the aforementioned case that I should be under a set of restrictions "until November 2007". No specific date was given, and as November 2007 is now nearly upon us, this detail has become significant. It could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end when we enter the month of November, or it could be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions end on Nov. 11, the second anniversary of the closing of the original case (pre-amendment). Naturally I prefer the first interpretation, and given the extraordinary duration of these restrictions I feel it would be more reasonable to end them on the earlier date, but I hope that the ArbCom will clarify this for me and determine which interpretation it considers more reasonable. Everyking 05:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to preface this by saying I do not feel EK has reformed, that he still repeats the same mistakes that led to his banning from the administrators' noticeboard and involuntary desysopping (that he gripes about others' administrative actions without doing a scintilla of work to educate himself on the situation), and that it's only a matter of time until the arbitration committee will have to deal with him again. With that said, (like all good computer engineers) I consider "until" to be exclusive of the termination condition. Therefore, I feel the correct interpretation would be that EK's restrictions should expire at the end of October. Raul654 14:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah. November 11th it is. The intent was clearly a one year extension. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do any other arbitrators have an opinion on this? I mean, if it's split, then it's effectively the later date, because I can't go out on a limb and try posting on AN and risk repercussions for that. Everyking 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * November 11 it is, then. Kirill 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2008)

 * Archived from Requests for arbitration.  Daniel  00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions&mdash;remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling&mdash;and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.
 * For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now&mdash;these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.


 * The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Appeal regarding Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
Some of the restrictions imposed on me by the Arbitration Committee in stages between November 2005 and July 2006 expired in November 2007; however, according to former arbitrator User:Raul654, I am still subject to two of the restrictions&mdash;remedy "X" from the original November 2005 ruling, and remedy 4 from the July 2006 amended ruling&mdash;and they will remain in effect indefinitely, until lifted by the ArbCom. (I don't know if the rest of the ArbCom agrees that they are still in effect, but the only arbitrator who has spoken about it says they are in effect, and therefore I must assume they are until or unless the other arbitrators say otherwise.) I am not concerned about falling afoul of these rulings, and have no intention to ever do the things they prohibit, but by remaining in place these remedies act as a "scarlet letter" impeding my participation on Wikipedia, enabling people to ignore, dismiss or insult me because I am "not a user in good standing", and rendering it almost hopeless for me to attempt to regain my adminship through RfA, which was taken from me by the ArbCom in 2006 for an issue unrelated to the case in question. I think these remedies accomplish nothing except to marginalize me and should be lifted. Everyking (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The committee has seen a fairly large number of aggrieved parties to previous arbitration hearings present appeals immediately after the changeover in membership, so please accept our apologies for not responding immediately. The term "in good standing" is an imprecise one capable of being taken strictly or loosely. Could you help us by pointing to recent examples where you feel you have been suffering through the presumed continuation of these remedies? Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Raul654 announced on behalf of the committee on November 14 that one of the remedies against Everyking (parole on music articles) was being suspended for 3 months, but would automatically go back into effect 90 days later unless otherwise decided by the committee. This means that we will need to review Everyking's recent editing in early February so we can make this decision by February 12. For the sake of efficiency, I suggest that we review this request for relief from the remaining sanctions at the same time.
 * For those of us who were not active at the time of the prior decisions, the history of these cases (including even locating "Remedy 4" and "Remedy X") is a little bit difficult to follow. Either now or when this request is renewed in February, could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a more complete set of links and a quick summary of the history? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by me, although of course I would prefer if it was heard now&mdash;these sanctions have been in place for an extraordinarily long time. My editing on pop music articles has varied very little over quite a long span of time and I don't see how it could be expected to be any different in February, so I see no reason that issue could not be conclusively decided at the present time as well.


 * The key issue concerning the effect my arbitration sanctions have on me is that very many people simply will not vote for someone with ongoing sanctions in an RfA. Some of those opposing said that they would be willing to vote for me when the sanctions expired, which was understood to be in Nov. 2007, but as it turned out the ruling was interpreted (at least by Raul) to mean that certain aspects of it remained in place even after that point. I don't have many other clear examples, although I think there is a widespread subtle effect; because I have stayed out of disputes for so long there have been few occasions for people to blatantly batter me with reminders of my low status. In October, after some articles were deleted purely because the person who wrote them was believed to be a banned user (I believe that content should be judged on its merits and not based on its author), I requested that User:Lar provide me with copies of the articles so that I could determine if they were suitable and potentially vouch for them, or at least put them through WP:DRV, and he told me that he would not because I was not a "user in good standing". I never obtained the copies and as far as I know the articles are still deleted. Everyking (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to your last point, the circumstances surrounding the particular banned user are exceptional, as I believe you are aware. As someone who generally supports giving second chances to users, I strongly advise that you would probably be better served by not using your interchange with Lar as an example of something that the remedies have prevented you from doing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, well, if we're going to get into a discussion of strategy here: I thought about not mentioning that because some people have particular feelings about the issue, but it was the best example I could think of in recent memory, and he asked for specific examples. Everyking (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My appeal request was removed by somebody "per arbitrator request" (nobody notified me; I had to dig through the history to figure out what happened) although no arbitrators ever voted on it and the two who commented on it did so in such a way as to not indicate any clear viewpoint. The arbitrators should either accept my request or reject it, not silently sweep it under the rug. I am thus restoring it and ask that the arbitrators actually address it in some form or another. I am a Wikipedian, I have been working continuously on this project under their restrictions, and I think I deserve something more than this silent, unexplained form of rejection. Everyking (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I had suggested that this be archived for now because I thought you had accepted (albeit reluctantly) that we could deal with all asoects of the restrictions continuing or not next month. Sorry about any confusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also thought that "Brad's suggestion of hearing everything together in February is all right by Everyking, although of course he would prefer if it was heard now". --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I said that was fine, but only if that's what we're really going to do. Are the arbitrators actually willing to hear the appeal at the beginning of next month? I'd be happy to withdraw this one if that was explicitly stated, but you must understand my skepticism&mdash;the ArbCom has rejected my appeals probably half a dozen times now. Everyking (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Advised Everyking to refile in Feb. Did this on his talk page. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Everyking 3
List of any users involved or affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Everyking and discussion
When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyking, we are starting to review it. I'll try to keep you updated. Poke me if you don't hear something by the middle of next week, okay. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the case be reviewed publicly, or at least semi-publicly, and that there be some kind of dialogue with me. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that you are apparently reviewing the case exclusively on your private mailing list. I would like for it to be done at least partially in the open, so I can see the reasoning and make points in my defense if necessary. Everyking (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's going to be open, it ought to be completely open, so the community can participate. I've got evidence I could present, for one thing. --Calton | Talk 15:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am all in favor of full openness. Everyking (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking, my view is that almost all of the restrictions can be lifted at this time, but there have been reservations expressed about lifting the restriction on your interacting with Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) based upon the nature and history of your interactions with this user in the past. Could you kindly comment on whether maintaining this restriction in effect would have a substantial negative effect upon you or other editors. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as the restriction itself goes, it doesn't really bother me, because I have no intention of interacting with that user anyway. However, I fear that any restriction at all will have some negative effect on my participation in the project, in the sense that arbitration restrictions act as a kind of scarlet letter. I would suggest that this restriction could be replaced by a personal pledge on my part to not interact with him; alternatively, the ArbCom could perhaps make it clear that the restriction is being left only due to historical reasons, that I have done nothing that the ArbCom views as a violation of that restriction or an offense against that user in a long time and that people should not therefore consider me a user of any kind of lesser standing because of that restriction. A third possibility is that you might ask the other user in question whether he wishes it to remain in place; if he had no objection to lifting it, that could make the answer simple. Everyking (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to point out that motion 2 is almost exactly the same as the status quo. The only (slight) difference is that the music parole is terminated (it is now merely suspended); the other things that would be terminated according to remedy 2 were already terminated in November. So a vote for motion 2 is a vote for no change. I also am confused that FT2 says that motion 1 lifts all restrictions, including the one regarding Phil, but the actual motion says that the restriction on interacting with Phil would remain in effect. I feel I presented three reasonable suggestions about what could replace that remedy while still addressing arbitrator concerns and I would hope they could be given some consideration. But at the same time, I don't want to confuse or complicate the issue further, considering the arbitrators are presently split between the two motions. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 has clarified the slight contradiction in his comment. With regard to the Phil Sandifer restriction, I tried to accommodate your concerns by noting that the continued restriction was based on past interactions, which was one of your points, and by specifically noting that you are eligible to post an RfA whenever you wish. I know this is not 100% of what you would have liked to see, but I tried to make a reasonable accommodation to your thoughts while posting a motion that addressed all competing concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think my concerns regarding that continuation of that aspect of the ruling would be largely addressed if the ArbCom stated that I should be considered a user in good standing. No one disputes that I'm eligible to post an RfA; the problem is that my arbitration restrictions cause people to consider me a user in poor standing and make it pointless for me to attempt going through the process. Everyking (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I consider you a user in good standing, irrespective of the outcome of the pending motions. However, I don't think the committee typically "evaluates" users (beyond imposing specific remedies where needed), and for better or worse, when I've proposed in workshops (before I was an arbitrator) a finding that a specific user remains in good standing, those proposals have never been accepted. If you want my personal opinion, any RfA by you will be controversial for a couple of reasons, regardless of the outcome of any motion that will be made, but I think that the controversy will have very little to do with whether there is an ongoing arbitration restriction against your talking about Snowspinner or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll let it go, then. Everyking (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On 18 July 2007 at 01:16 (UTC), the arbitration committee announced that I am a "user in good standing". Brad, are you implying that I might be the only person officially recognized in this manner? Flattering thought, though it may require some research. [[Image:Smiley.svg|15px|]] — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If Requests for arbitration/Completed requests is reliable, then yes, you are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If motion 2 succeeds, I would like the arbitrators to explain to me what I can do to get these restrictions lifted in the future. I'm sure the arbitrators wouldn't keep a penalty on me unconditionally, regardless of what I do. Everyking (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I much prefer motion 1, I will leave this for others to comment on. I presume the answer will be something like "avoid unnecessary disputes for awhile longer," but I shouldn't be presumptuous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One might presume that, but given the length of time that has already passed, and considering that most of you are currently voting to uphold the status quo, I find it difficult to believe that a bit more time is going to make any difference. The ArbCom is voting to continue branding me as a harasser even though no one is claiming I have done anything resembling "harassment" in over 18 months. I'm not even trying to get the ArbCom to acknowledge I didn't harass people; I'd just like it to acknowledge that I don't harass people now, and apparently even that minimum level of redress is a bridge too far. Everyking (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Calton
Is my understanding of Amended Remedy 4 -- that Everyking is prohibited from commenting on admin actions -- period/full stop -- correct, or am I thinking of a different, now-expired remedy? Or is it that Everyking is restricted from commenting only if certain specified conditions (such as location of the criticism or tone of criticism) are true? I'd like to be sure before commenting on specifics. --Calton | Talk 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're remembering the original formulation in the Workshop, which was refined in the final decision to allow commenting on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari
I personally believe that Everyking should have all remaining sanctions lifted. I've interacted a few times with Everyking in the past few months, and every time I have I've found him to be courteous and intelligent. I think any problems he's had in the past have been addressed, and that he's learned from them, so I see little reason for any sanctions on him to continue. I very much doubt that Everyking would work to have his sanctions removed and then do something to have them re-instated. Like Newyorkbrad, I too consider Everyking to be a user in good standing. Acalamari 17:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Anonymous Dissident
I am unsure about whether I am too late to give my opinion on this matter; I would have given it sooner, had it not been for my short break. However, I would now like to express my trust in Everyking, and my feeling that all of his "vices", as it were, be lifted. I have interacted with Everyking in past, and I believe that these sancitions are no longer needed. Thanks, -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion
This case dates back to 2005; and had to be re-opened on three subsequent occasions for continuing issues between 2005 and July 2006. The issues kept trying to come back, it would seem. However, in the last 18 months, there has been comparative peace, and EveryKing now wants to ask, reasonably, if the issue (close to 2 years old) can be closed and all restrictions lifted.

Ordinarily I'd be inclined to agree, subject to checking with other arbitrators (with longer memories) whether matters have indeed been reasonable since then. That is the view of motion #1. However there was an incident in October 2007 which looks like it has left Kirill with concerns. The matter was resolved civilly, and Everyking was willing to offer a reasonable compromise after some discussion and initial heel-digging, and was unblocked. The agreement seems to have worked that time. But I can see why concerns may linger on conduct issues, and why perhaps motion 2 is proposed also.

The differences between the two are remedies 5 ("required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it") and harassment/enforcement, would persist under motion #2. Does Everyking still need the protection of these to prevent him (and the community) from such conduct issues in future, or without them, will he still keep himself well? Or does the general track record since 2006, and the at least bearable handling of the above incident, suggest they are no longer needed? That's the issue. Will opine when I've considered a bit more. FT2 (Talk 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - away the weekend. If I haven't voted by tomorrow noon UTC, assume I'm offline, and supportive of either as 1st or 2nd choices. If others are ready to close then count me away and do so. FT2 (Talk 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Update 2 - minor correction as per EK's comment above. FT2 (Talk 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions and voting

 * There are currently 15 active arbitrators, so a majority is 8.

Motion 1:
 * Any remaining restrictions previously imposed upon in Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 or by subsequent motions are terminated, effective immediately, except that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with or commenting about Phil Sandifer (Snowspinner) remains in effect based on the previous history of interaction between those users.  Everyking is urged to continue to bear in mind the guidance regarding best editing and commenting practices provided in the committee's decisions.  The committee notes that Everyking is eligible to submit a request for adminship at any time. It would be up to the community to decide whether to reconfer administrator status.

Support:
 * I am hopeful that the restrictions on this editor are no longer necessary. See also discussion above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to me a reasonable move forward, to recognise Everyking's more productive behaviour but to retain a restriction about contacting Phil Sandifer as a backstop. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 02:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either is fine by me. --Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence marginally prefer this to #2. But looks like #2 has consensus.

Oppose:
 * No. See alternate motion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Abstain:
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Motion 2:
 * Remedy 2 of EK3 (prohibition against posting on AN/I) is terminated.
 * Remedy 3 of EK3 (commenting on admin's actions) is terminated.
 * Everyking's music article "parole" is terminated.
 * Remedy 5 of EK3 is continued (and indeed, is a common sense requirement for all editors.)
 * Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer) is continued.
 * The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3 is continued.
 * Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes.

Support:
 * jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as second choice if my motion fails. However, this vote should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Remedy 5 is common sense and therefore almost impossible to enforce. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kirill 13:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Either is fine by me. --Deskana (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Matthews (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul August &#9742; 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Second choice.
 * This one's a little more direct. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 (Talk 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Support either; the request for views gave 2 views both supporting that sanctions are no longer needed. Hence some question whether the continuing restrictions are needed. But looks like this is the motion that is likely to have consensus.

Oppose:

Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3
Initiated by  Avruch  T at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch
I would ask the Committee to again reconsider the remedies of the Everyking3 case, including its recently passed motion responding to Everyking's appeal. I've written my concerns to the Committee mailing list, but the message is being held for moderator approval. The two motions considered by the Committee upon revisiting the remedies in this case both enjoyed the support of a majority of the Committee but are clearly contradictory.

Motion 1 eliminates all but one remedy and implies approval of the appeal, while Motion 2 leaves two remedies intact and applies an additional, unconsidered remedy that limits the ability of the subject of this case to file additional appeals and implicitly disapproves of the appeal as filed. The apparent contradiction and the fact that the outcome does not appear to take the requested outside views into account calls into question whether the Committee fully considered the elements of this case before Motion 2 was found to have passed.

With respect, Avruch  T 01:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far
Comments so far have focused exclusively on the procedural issue of the motions and the order of passage. I don't disagree that this is partly the source of the confusion - observers not walking through the history to see the votes in progress will see that both motions pass, but only motion 2 is considered in effect. Still, if motion 1 passed second and represents a significant deviation from motion 2, the import of that should be considered.

Even so, the substantive issue appears to be more important to me - aside from which motion should have effect based on Committee procedure, it is clear regardless that both motions had a majority support of the same Committee and largely the same members and yet they clearly contradict eachother in meaning. Why would the same members support in one moment a continuation of only one remedy and a lifting of all other sanctions and in another moment support continuing two remedies and adding a third? There doesn't appear to be evidence indicating an abuse of the appeal process by Everyking, so what is the unenumerated justification for limiting his ability to appeal? Connections have been drawn to the US Supreme Court, where summary judgments without greater explanation are not uncommon - I think it would be a mistake for the Committee to adopt this habit, because the community of which the Committee is a part requires greater clarity.

Respectfully, Avruch  T 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up
It looks like three participating Arbitrators have expressed a willingness to revote the items of the motions separately, and three have not. What is the next step on this before it gets archived as stale? Avruch  T 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since no Arbitrators have commented in more than two weeks on this section, is it reasonable to assume that no action will be taken and it ought to be archived/proceed to some other step? Avruch  T 02:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Uninvolved User Jay*Jay
I do not recall ever having edited with Everyking and so can make no comment on his actions or the ArbCom sanctions. However, I am greatly concerned by the way the appeal has been handled and want to strongly endorse Avruch's request for a reconsideration. My concern is two-fold. Firstly, as Avruch has noted and the related AN discussion shows, the imposition of a new restriction on making an appeal appears punitive. The philosophy underling sanctions (bans, blocks, etc) is supposed to be to protect the encyclopedia and to prevent disruption. I fail to see how this restriction pursues either aim, as no suggestion of disruption has been made, and the ArbCom believed the appeal was sufficiently warranted to debate and pass two separate ammednment motions, both of which reduce the sanctions on Everyking. The situation is akin to a court finding for the plaintiff and then ordering that the plaintiff pay costs for both parties. It is, frankly, bizarre.

My second concern relates to the contradiction which has also been noted elsewhere. This diff includes the entire appeal case immediately prior to it being archived. I suggest that the summary of the motion presented on the case page and the relating modification is in error, for the following reasons: Possible resolutions: There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved. They include:
 * 1) Motions require a majority of 8 to pass, and motion 1 passes 8-2 with 1 abstention - there is no requirement, as I understand it, for a net vote of 8, merely a simple majority.
 * 2) Motion 2 is recorded as passing 11-1.  However, this count is only correct if Newyorkbrad's vote is taken as an 'oppose'.  His vote actually stated that it "should be counted as an "oppose" if both motions have a majority and the question is which one has more support" - showing that the passing of motion 1 was recognised.
 * 3) Four ArbCom members (Newyorkbrad, FT2, Paul August, and Sam Blacketer) expressly noted a preference for motion 1 over motion 2.  Although only Newyorkbrad expressly noted that such a preference means opposition of motion 2 if motion 1 passes, a reasonable interpretation (in light of motion 1's passing) would be that motion 2 actually has 8 supports and 4 neutral/oppose votes.
 * Passing only motion 1 as motion 2 has more opposition than does motion 1 - problematic, as it remains the case that both should pass.
 * Asking Deskana, who expressly states that "either is fine", to form a preference, thus supporting only one motion and being neutral or opposing the other - thereby resolving which motion passes.
 * Ask for reconsideration by some or all of Kirill, FloNight, and Blnguyen, each of whom also supported both motions, to express a preference for a single motion and neutrality or opposition towards the other - which would also resolve which motion passes.
 * I do not see any additional clarity is gained by reconsideration by any of the four remaining ArbCom members who voted (UnivitedCompany, Charles Matthews, bainer, and jpgordon), as each has indicated a clear preference (either in comment or by vote) for motion 2 over motion 1. However, there were (at the time of the appeal) three other active ArbCom members who have noted voted and who could.  I am not sure that this would be helpful, as no vote by them could alter the fact that both motions received the support needed to pass.

I strongly believe that the appeal should be reopened, as the present outcome is not only unjust and inequitable (in adding a new appeal restriction), but also seriously flawed by internal contradiction. Two conflicting motions should not ever be passed, and the need for clarity for the community strongly indicates that ArbCom should re-open the appeal to resolve the ambiguity as a matter of urgency. The are obviously other possible appraoches to providing clarity that the Committee could adopt - simply holding a fresh vote on each motion would be one, provided members recognised that supporting both motions is unsatisfactory if suitabke caveats are not noted. I have no stake in what solution is adopted, although believe that the appeal restriction appears punitive and unjustified; however, I implore the Committee members to act to provide clarity. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I note that there has also been discussion here on Thatcher's talk page about the closure and the interpretation of two passing motions. That discussion further serves to highlight the unsatisfactory and subjective approach applied in situations such as this. I have absolutely no doubt that Thatcher acted in good faith in trying to resolve the situation, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that ArbCom passed two contradictory motions. Leaving the interpretation of that action to the discretion of a single Clerk - who in this case chose to disregard a passed motion - is unacceptable. Wjbscribe's analysis below shows that the opposite result can be obtained by another reasonable interpretation of passing two motions - actually applying both, in either sequence. The fault here lies squarely with ArbCom, as it was their actions that have created the ambiguity. It is up to ArbCom to resolve this problem. I have proposed several possible approaches. Wjbscribe provides another, in that ArbCom could simply affirm that both motions passed and that both must be applied. Newyorkbrad provides another, in that individual votes could be held on each individual modification. Please, re-open the appeal, and act to fix the problem that you have created. It is reasonable to leave to admin discretion and community interpretation what enforcement might be required for any breach of an ArbCom-imposed sanction, but it is not reasonable to require discretion of a Clerk or anyone else be used in determination of what are those sanctions. ArbCom acts careful to avoid such ambiguity by passing only single and unambiguous sanctions in its cases, and has erred in not acting carefully with respect to the motions in the appeal. Rectifying this error is necessary and urgent, as the present ambiguity is unacceptable. Jay*Jay (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on Comment from Thatcher: The problem is concisely illustrated when Thatcher sighes that the two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. The problem, of course, is that they did both pass. The correctness or otherwise of any analysis of conditional votes is irrelevant. Analysis should never be required to interpret whether a binding decision was made, and such analysis cannot alter the unarguable fact that both motions did pass. The fact that the present analysis results in the application of a new restriction on Everyking simply makes the situation worse. The origin of the ambiguity lies in ArbCom passing contradictory motions, and only ArbCom can address the situation. Jay*Jay (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
I emailed the following analysis to ArbCom yesterday:

My understanding of the process is as follows: 8 Arbitrators is a majority. Proposals supported by 8 or more Arbitrators pass.

In this case, two motions were supported by 8 or more Arbitrators, therefore logically both must pass. A majority of Arbitrators have supported lifting the following sanctions against Everyking through their support of motion #1:
 * 1) Remedy 5 of EK
 * 2) The harassment ban and terms of enforcement in the July 2006 amendment to EK3

It does not seem to matter which motion passed first. If motion #1 passed first, these remedies no longer existed to be "continued" by motion #2. If motion #2 passed first, these remedies were then terminated by the passing of motion #1. The latter scenario seems to have occured here as motion #2 reached a majority first. Motion #1 should not have been ignored simply because motion #2 passed as it too enjoyed a majority. The fact that one motion enjoyed more support than the other does not seem relevant as the criteria for passage is reaching a majority, not the greatest majority. Looked at another way, if motion #1 were voted on now and reached the same level, it would clearly take effect.

In this case, it seems to me that both motions have passed and come into effect by result of being supported by 8 Arbitrators. The only remedy Everyking therefore remains subject to is: Remedy X of EK3 (non-interaction and non-commenting on Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer). And he is (through motion #2) restricted from appealing that remedy more than once a year.

Therefore I believe a further post to AN is required informing the community of the effects of motion #1 passing (that two of the sanctions continued by motion #2 are now terminated), and that Everyking should be notified that the sanctions against him are further reduced by the success of that motion. The present result means that although Everyking gained the support of a majority of the full Committee for lifting those 2 sanctions, he remains subject to them. I do not believe this to be a fair result. WjBscribe 04:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment by David Mestel
In my view, the most significant problem here resulted from the fact that the motions were listed as "1" and "2", rather than "1" and "1.1", as is the norm where there are multiple alternative proposals (see, for example, here), and the correct action would have been to renumber them accordingly; perhaps it would be a good idea for the committee to make clear that it is happy for clerks to do this when proposals are clearly incompatible (such as these proposals in Ehud Lesar), subject obviously to reversion if arbitrators disagree. Notwithstanding this, there is considerable ambiguity as to how alternative proposals should be resolved, and I would respectfully commend to the committee my proposals here, subject to rewriting for clarity. I understand and accept Newyorkbrad's point that they are rather complex, but in my submission this should not be too much of a problem, since they are to be applied by clerks who presumably have studied and understood them, and any editors who object to or are puzzled by a result are also likely to have sufficient motivation also to read and understand them, or, alternatively, to ask for explanation. In any event, it is clearly more transparent to have a concrete though somewhat complex set of written procedures, rather than to rely on unwritten practice and individual judgement.

In these particular circumstances, it is my view that, in the absence of concrete guidelines, Thatcher's judgement of arbitrators' preference was correct (although it might perhaps have been preferable to hold off on closing and seek further guidance), and, if the committee shares this view, it is therefore not necessary to re-open the appeal, and the best course of action would be to adopt a summary motion confirming motion 2 in the appeal, or, in the case of the contrary view, one disapproving the outcome and re-opening the appeal. David Mestel(Talk) 16:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from AGK
Whilst I rarely make comment on matters in cases out with those I am directly involved in, I feel compelled to make public my feelings on this matter. The underlying problems in this case are somewhat simple, and easily remediable:
 * Confusion exists over what the Committee's consensus on this matter is
 * Editors involved in the case, as well as uninvolved users, are of the opinion that the decision that has been posted differs from the consensus of the Committee as a whole, as measured as the vote held on the matter

Respectively, these issues can be addressed very simply:
 * The Committee as a whole (rather than individual arbitrators) clarify its intended decision in this matter,
 * If the intended decision differs from that which has recently been implemented, then the matter be re-opened and consensus re-gauged through the medium of a vote.

My view on whether re-opening the matter for Committee consideration remains unspecified, as I cannot say for certain what the Committee's consensus is, hence my call for a statement from it as a whole on the matter. I reiterate: a statement representing the consensus of the Arbitrators, and released on behalf of the Committee as a whole is necessary, both to clarify the circumstances once-and-for-all, and to provide a basis by which the decision of whether to reopen (and hence re-consider) the matter can be made. AGK (contact) 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Zocky
Clerks already write up a summary of each case and post it to the parties' pages. Maybe we could avoid these situations if they wrote the summary before closing the case, so that they have a chance to notice inconsistencies and ask arbitrators for additional information? Zocky | picture popups 20:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In full-fledged cases, a clerk or an arbitrator prepares an "implementation note" at the bottom of the proposed decision page before the motion to close is completed, which allows any ambiguities or anomolies to be identified and addressed and serves exactly the purpose you suggest. That practice has not been used in the "requests for clarifications/motions in closed cases" section where the procedure and format is generally much simpler, but I agree that is a useful suggestion for more complicated situations like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes
The two motions were mutually incompatible, they could not both pass. Note that full cases have a motion to close phase with implementation notes, this gives the Arbitrators a chance to adjust their votes so that their intentions are correctly carried out. Open motions do not have separate votes to close and are usually enacted 24 hours after a majority is apparent. The usual method of analyzing conditional votes was applied. Several other approaches are discussed on my talk page. Thatcher 06:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This request will be removed and archived in 24 hours unless new proposals are offered for voting. Thatcher 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that if the arbitrators wanted this closed, they would have signalled that by now. Instead it appears we are waiting on the next phase to begin, and as a clerk I don't see how you can issue an ultimatum to the arbitrators that they do something at a certain time. Everyking (talk) 04:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have emailed the Arbitrators twice about this request. I will not presume to guess why this request is stale, and has attracted no comment or proposals for voting in the last 18 days, but stale it is, and 10 days is the usual standard for archiving. Thatcher 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * NYB has said that he intends to propose new motions. Perhaps he has changed his mind, but surely we can at least give him long enough to tell us what he is (or isn't) going to do. Everyking (talk) 06:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I do intend to offer new motions in this matter. I have some concerns about the timing of doing so, however, which I will address with Everyking in a response to a note he left on my talkpage. In the meantime, the Clerk has acted properly by suggesting that a temporarily stalled discussion be moved off the main RfAr page, and can go ahead so far as I am concerned. Please note that an arbitrator, for good cause, may make a motion to reopen or modify the decision in any closed case at any time, and that whether and when to do so is a matter of the arbitrator's judgment and discretion, not affected by whether a request for clarification is located on this page or in an archive or nowhere at all. When motions are posted, a link would be provided to any archived discussion and there would be an opportunity for further discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators' views and discussion

 * Comment: There has been detailed discussion from time to time as to how we should decide which alternative proposal passes when multiple proposals on the same topic receive the required majority. In past instances, there have been a couple of times when it was not at all clear which of two alternatives has been adopted, which have been generally been resolved when one or two arbitrators struck their support from their second choices so that the outcome was clarified. Even now, it's not clear to me whether in a case with a required majority of 7, if proposal 1.1 has 8 supports and no opposes, and alternative proposal 1.2 has 9 supports and no opposes but three of the supports are labelled "second choice," which one is enacted. And if one allows for oppose votes also, then it gets even more complicated. A month or so ago, one of our most senior Clerks wrote a note in userspace about how we might address these situations (see, User:David.Mestel/ArbComvoting), which would eliminate these ambiguities, but at the time I judged the proposal to be a bit too complicated to recommend adoption. (paragraph) With respect to these particular motions, a further complication is that the arbitrators felt compelled either to vote for my "motion 1," as a whole, or Jpgordon's alternative motion 2, also as a whole. There were differences not only in the specific sanctions that I thought could be lifted but that Jpg thought should be kept in force, but also in other nuances of the wording (my motion was a narrative with admonitions and observations; Jpg's was just a list, and some arbs might not have cared for my verbosity or my dicta). It's a commonplace in the legal and political science literature that the order of voting and whether issues are voted on jointly and singly can sometimes decide the result of the voting. This has happened in several significant U.S. Supreme Court cases (I've actually been researching a real-world article on the subject; boring details on request; compare also Arrow's theorem). The fairest thing to do here, if the committee determines that there is a problem here that ought to receive further attention in the interests of fairness or the appearance of fairness, would be to vote on the termination or continuation of each of the sanctions as to which the two motions are in disagreement, individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The statement 'support as second preference' means that I supported motion 2, but expressed a preference for motion 1 to be adopted if the two emerged with equal approval. In this case they did not have equal approval; motion 1 attracted opposition which was not present for motion 2. In that case the support for motion 2 still stands. The support for either motion was because both took the Everyking case forward by lifting some restrictions, but maintaining some in force; the reason for indicating a preference for motion 1 was because it did not expressly continue a provision which was common sense, would not normally need to be stated, and was difficult to enforce. However a preference for support is not a conditional oppose. Had I intended that meaning, I would have written it explicitly. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Though the motion was closed a little faster than I might have preferred (specifically because of this fuss), the result is consistent with ArbCom's methods in the past. When alternate proposals are put forward, and both pass, the one with the most support wins. In this case, it's even simpler. Open motions, in general, are considered passed as soon as they are supported by a majority of arbitrators. Motion 2 thus could have been considered passed and immediately enacted by the clerks after this vote by Charles Matthews, which made the vote for the first motion 6-2-1 and the vote for the second motion 8-0. The clerks wisely waited, since six and five arbitrators, respectively, had not made their opinions known. In the ensuing three days, the second motion gained four more votes; the first gained two. The consensus of the committee was quite clear and unambiguous at that point; of the two alternate motions, the one with the most support carried.  --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to Avruch: my own interpretation of the meaning of people voting to support both motions is "Either one is exactly fine with me; I'll go along with the consensus of the Committee". This is based on the assumption that all were aware the two were alternates. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it was pretty clear the two motions were alternates, especially given your comment in opposing my motion that you were offering your own, and the number of references either to "second choice" or "either is fine" or whatever. The fundamental problem may still be, as I observed above, that people were given the choice of voting for your proposal or mine or both or neither, rather than parsing the specifics of each one. Of course any arbitrator could have asked for a division of the question and no one did, but even so. How can division of the question be a redlink? Where are our parliamentary law and procedure articles? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have it at division (vote) :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no, "division (vote)" or "division of the assembly" refers to the voting process itself, in a legislature or parliamentary body. A request or motion for a "division of the question" (or "to divide the question") is a request that separate, divisible aspects or parts of a main motion be voted on separately. This is definitely going on my wiki-to-do list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion here is that, as David Mestel observes, these alternative wordings were labelled "1" and "2" and not "1" and "1.1", as is commonly the practice. Clearly none of us intended that these should be anything other than alternatives. I vote that Josh goes home and practices his numbers some more :) --bainer (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To exonerate Josh, I will plead guilty to being the person who introduced the complex numeration scheme "1", "2" into this discussion. Per my comment above, everyone understood these motions were alternatives and I don't believe this contributed in any significant way to the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I understood from Josh's comment these were alternatives. I also understood the question behind them to be - certain matters were agreed redundant (or emerged as such by consensus), but a couple of the restrictions were not clearly agreed redundant and the decision was centered around whether those should be continued at this time. This was my reading of the difference between 1 and 2, and I noted more support seemed to coalesce for the view that considered they should continue.

I am happy to see it re-considered if that would help, since a decision must not only be considered, but must visibly be seen to be clear in its decision where possible. In editorial disputes that often means "go and re-check consensus on it", as in last month's rollback RFAR decline. I'm willing to take the same view here as well. FT2 (Talk 19:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, wait a sec. Have any arbitrators expressed any concern that the result is incorrect or did not reflect our consensus? I mean, we're right here, we're paying attention to this page, it's been brought up on the mailing list, it was brought up on AN/I, and I haven't heard so much as a suggestion from anyone in ArbCom that this was not the appropriate outcome. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that there were two motions, each being considered in toto, the conclusion that motion 2 superseded motion 1 is certainly defensible. However, I can't be sure whether a majority of the continuing restrictions that your motion and mine disagreed on, might have been terminated if the points had been voted on item-by-item. If Everyking were able to come back in a reasonable time and raise the individual items again (and we would re-vote now knowing that it should be done differently), that would be okay. But the last point of your motion also locks him out of making another appeal for another full year, and given the ambiguity of the result on the current appeal, that does bother me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that bothers me too. Paul August &#9742; 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lesson here on "block voting" alternatives which are similar but not identical. I'm happy to do it again more "item by item", simply because although I think it was closed according to intent, it's in a way, better to revote it than to have uncertainty. FT2 (Talk 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After considering this for some time, and in view of the dispute over the format of the voting that arose through no fault of Everyking, I have concluded that it will be in the interest of actual and perceived fairness to offer new motions. This assumes that Everyking would like for the matter to be reconsidered at this point. The motions will be formatted so that the continuation of each sanction still in force following the adoption of motion 2 would be voted upon individually. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Everyking notified
 * Everyking notified

Statement by Acalamari
I'm here to request an appeal for Everyking, to remove, or at the very least, reduce his remaining sanctions, as I believe they are no longer necessary. These sanctions, as the Arbitration Committee is aware, are listed here.

In February 2008, Everyking requested an appeal himself to have his remaining sanctions lifted, and the Arbitration Committee were to review his behavior to see if it would be worthwhile to lift them. To give community input about Everyking's behavior, both myself and another administrator, Anonymous Dissident left statements saying how we believed that Everyking had improved, and that his sanctions should go. Ultimately, two motions were suggested: Motion 1 would remove all of Everyking's remaining sanctions except for the one regarding interaction with Snowspinner (Phil Sandifer), and the motion also reminded Everyking to continue to bear in mind the guidance regarding best editing and commenting practices provided in the committee's decisions, and that he was welcome to submit a request for adminship anytime. Motion 2 would lift all but three of his sanctions (Remedy 5, Remedy X, and the harassment ban and terms of enforcement), and would also add a new one: Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes. In addition, Motion 2 technically only removed one of his sanctions (Everyking’s music parole), for the other sanctions that were lifted in the Motion had already expired in November 2007. In the end, the Arbitrators voted to go with Motion 2, though Motion 1 also had more arbitrators supporting it than opposing it.

After this happened, WJBscribe said to Everyking that he believed the outcome was unfair, as both motions had achived majority support, and that he had expressed his views on the administrators' noticeboard. Avruch, however, went as far as to request a new appeal to remove Everyking's sanctions. After some discussion, the request went stale, and was archived by Thatcher. Newyorkbrad, who was an arbitrator at the time, had said the following. In this statement, Newyorkbrad believed that the formatting for the motions was not Everyking's fault, and that it would be fair to offer new motions, and that the remaining sanctions would be voted on individually rather than all at once. I also think that voting on each remaining sanction individually is fair.

I ask that the Arbitration Committee consider this appeal, and vote on each remaining sanction on Everyking. I do not believe that these sanctions are needed anymore, and I think that Everyking has learned from past mistakes, and that removing the sanctions would be beneficial to both Everyking and the encyclopedia. Acalamari 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch
Acalamari has given all the detail required to review this, and I hope the Committee will act on this and provide some clarity in this case. I regret that my schedule has not allowed me to follow up on this as I told Everyking I would, and I'm glad that someone else has acted.

The principle here is that the Committee and the community should not unduly restrict editors who are willing and constructive contributors to the encyclopedia, and case remedies that are unnecessary and outdated should be removed by the Committee. The Committee had expressed a desire to review this case, and did so (albeit late). Unfortunately, due to the structure of the decision and the likelihood that explanatory discussion occurred among the Committee off-wiki, the resolution of that review was unclear: passing motions that clearly conflicted.

When I asked for clarification, not one Arbitrator saw fit to offer motions that could be voted upon separately. I realize the Committee has a heavy caseload for a volunteer body, but I think that if the Committee cannot agree to relieve Everyking of the remaining case remedies per curiam then they should at a minimum be voted upon separately to see which, if any, ought to remain.

Avruch  T 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Everyking
I thank Acalamari for taking up this complex issue and I thank Avruch for his statement above. I'll just add a few things. First, I feel there is no basis for any concern about my behavior; regardless of what one may think of my behavior in 2005, I have, for the last two years, made an effort to avoid excessive involvement in admin issues (particularly since I am no longer an admin) and to avoid giving people the impression that I am some kind of nuisance, gadfly or devil's advocate, as some people labelled me in the past. I believe others can vouch for the civil and reasonable tone of my expression of views on the AN pages since last November, when the AN restriction was lifted. The restrictions still in place mark me as a harasser of admins, but you will not be able to find any admin who believes I have harassed him or her in recent memory.

In addition, I am hoping that, because the previous request for clarification made by Avruch was concluded with Newyorkbrad promising to post separate motions, the rest of the ArbCom will be willing to follow through on that now that he has left the project. Everyking (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * We just did this. There was no "confusion" of any sort among those who were casting their votes on the different measures; we're quite experienced at ArbCom voting for multiple approaches to the same issue. We knew exactly what we were doing and what we were voting for, and what the outcome of the voting meant. That there was confusion among some observers meant that it needed to be clarified, which it was. The only "unfairness" regarding the vote was to those who were mistaken about the mechanics of the vote -- none of whom were either arbitrators or involved parties. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I direct everyone's attention to section 7 of the motion passed in February? It says "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." One year has not passed and the request was not by Everyking. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As per Jpgordon, there was no confusion (perhaps lack of clarity originally); as per Sam Blacketer, this appeal is premature. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on arbitration restrictions with respect to ArbCom election
How do my arbitration restrictions apply with regard to the current ArbCom election? Specifically, I am barred from communicating with and even acknowledging the existence of one of the candidates. Will the ArbCom allow me to submit questions to that candidate as part of the process? Furthermore, will I be allowed to take part in the vote on his candidacy? This is a request for clarification, not an appeal. Everyking (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to stress, going back to the crux of the entire case in 2005, that the right to ask questions or vote is something I am happy to sacrifice&mdash;provided the same restriction applies to Phil Sandifer. The crux of the case was that Phil wanted to preserve his right to criticize me while depriving me of my right to criticize him; the reason our pre-arbitration agreement fell through was because he chose to speak critically about me while I had already agreed to refrain from speaking critically about him. All I have ever asked with regard to Phil Sandifer is that the ArbCom treat us equally and apply either mutual restrictions or no restrictions; currently, restrictions apply only to me, treating me as a stalker and harasser while making Phil appear to be a victim, which is a smear on my reputation&mdash;and that's the central reason why I have objected so frequently and vigorously to these sanctions over the last three years. So in effect what I am asking in this particular matter is that the ArbCom either grant me the right to question and vote or formally withdraw Phil Sandifer's right to question and vote in the event that I were to run for ArbCom (which I am not planning to do this year).

Another situation also comes to mind: AfDs. On several occasions, Phil has nominated articles for deletion when I felt they should be kept, but because historically the ruling has always been interpreted contrary to my interests, I was afraid to actually register my opinions in the AfDs. Will the ArbCom on this occasion clarify whether the ruling should apply to AfDs? Mind you, the same situation as above applies here: I am happy to sacrifice this right if the same restriction is applied to Phil. Everyking (talk) 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the comments from the arbitrators so far, I gather that there is a strong consensus in favor of letting me vote and a somewhat weaker consensus in favor of letting me ask questions. I doubt that I will ask Phil any questions, but if I do I will be careful to do so in as uncontroversial a manner as possible. Would it now be possible for the arbitrators to also comment on the issue of AfDs, as I mentioned above? Everyking (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In response to Phil, I am not seeking a "one-time exception"; I am seeking the right to vote and ask questions any time Phil runs for ArbCom, not just on this single occasion. I hope very much that these restrictions will not exist for much longer, but that isn't something I can count on. Everyking (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem to make any sense to say, as FloNight is saying, that I can question and vote but not register my opinion in AfDs. The former deals directly with Phil Sandifer, while the latter deals with content and does not involve any kind of direct exchange with Phil. Furthermore, it seems quite unjust to tell me I must exclude myself from a content issue simply because Phil happened to get involved with it. As an extreme case, we can envision a scenario where Phil nominates something I wrote for deletion: what then? I can't even argue for the preservation of my own work? Everyking (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman


 * This request is about allowing me the opportunity to participate in the election on an equal basis. I have no particular question in mind and I don't know if I would make use of the opportunity to ask a question. I would certainly vote, though, if that was allowed. Everyking (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jehochman
I am unfamiliar with the details of this case. In general it would be a step towards civility if editors did not view these elections as an opportunity for target practice with their favorite throwing axe. No, conflicts should be sorted via dispute resolution. An oppose vote should be allowed, even if the editors have a history or if there is an injunction prohibiting interaction. However, asking loaded questions or placing an excessive volume of criticism on the candidate's discussion page might be disruptive. This standard should also be considered for our requests for adminship process. Jehochman Talk 00:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Scott MacDonald
I'm not really getting this. Sure, Everyking should be able to record his inevitable "oppose" to Phil's candidature. But what on earth can be his pressing need to ask an election question? If he's restricted from interaction, then he shouldn't interact. Let's face it, it isn't as if candidates are going to be so short of questions that Everyking is going to have a pressing need to interrogate. Pragmatically, his question is unlikely to make any difference to this election at all. (And, on the odd chance, his question is uniquely profound, he can phone a friend to ask.)

Frankly, this looks like an opportunity to wikilayer in a way that looks on paper justified, but in truth is drama for no return. When people are put under sanctions, then there is a cost - thankfully, the cost here is a "right" that Everyking neither needs, nor the exercise of which would be in least beneficial to the project. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ultraexactzz
In theory, objectionable questions can be removed if consensus deems them offensive or unacceptable in some fashion. I have no particular preference or request for the committee in favor or against permitting Everyking's participation, but I would note that a process exists for removing problem questions. Similar rules exist for voting, where votes with personal attacks or other shenanigans can be truncated or removed entirely. Looking from a process standpoint, then, there is little to fear from a user posting objectionable questions or votes, as both would swiftly be removed.

Scott MacDonald raises an interesting point, as the sanction - as currently worded - might preclude even a vote in the election, such vote being construed as a "comment about..." which is prohibited. Everyking is an eligible voter - being under Arbcom sanction does not itself disqualify him or anyone - so I might recommend that the committee either explicitly permit him to cast a vote, either normally or without further comment, or alternatively, permit him to cast a proxy ballot in some fashion yet to be determined. Either way, the committee's decision clearly did not contemplate a situation like this, so a clarification is definitely in order. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Phil Sandifer
Sorry - I somehow missed the notification here. In any case, I have no problems whatsoever with a one-time exception for this, and would encourage the committee to allow Everyking to ask whatever questions he wants. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by A Nobody
Given than Phil Sandifer himself writes above that he encourages the committee to allow Everyking to ask whatever questions he wants, I second and agree with that sentiment that Everyking should be allowed to ask questions in the upcoming election. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Phil Sandifer notified.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments moved to appropriate sections.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Section heading now links to relevant case.--Tznkai (talk) 07:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the opinion of the committee can be summarized as "Everyking may both vote for/against and pose questions to Phil Sandifer during Arbitration Committee Elections, as long as such things are done within existing policy and reason." I'd like to shuffle this off as resolved in 24 hours or less.--Tznkai (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyking has asked me hold on clearing this off the table until there is a clarification on Everyking's participation in AfDs. Is this clarification likely to come?--Tznkai (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

 * I do not think the existing restrictions can reasonably be construed as forbidding Everyking from posing general questions to, or voting for or against, the candidate in question. Tentatively and subject to further input, although the literal interpretation is more debatable, I would also oppose interpreting the restrictions so as to bar Everyking from posing individualized questions to the candidate, although any questions focusing on the events of several years ago that led to the restrictions (which events I have not studied in detail and have no comment on) should be avoided. Before a consensus is reached here, however, a Clerk should kindly provide Phil Sandifer with notice of this thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with NYB here. The matter of individual questions is, admittedly, somewhat more vague than one of general questions (which, in the current structure, are posted to a central page and therefore don't constitute interaction in any case) or voting; but I am inclined to let you ask questions freely, so long as they don't cross the line and become harassment of a candidate—which should already be covered by standard conduct policies. Kirill (prof) 00:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above; as long as Everyking is asking reasonable questions in a calm way, he ought not to be prevented. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Many users are aware there has been historical "bad blod" between these two, so any questions asked will surely be reviewed with that knowledge. If the questions are fair and good ones, then I would not wish Everyking to be deprived of sufferage to ask them. Whoever is appointed he will have to live with it. Because of the history though, a pointy or "biased" style of questioning or vote comment, or a question that was not asked in a fair and balanced way, might get seen negatively, and may result in a decision that it's best to separate them again (or at least have the wording of his questions checked before posting). So on principle, I would not interpret the existing decision to prevent Everyking asking reasonably useful questions to Phil Sandifer as a candidate, and I would not interpret them to prevent him voting. I would not intercede if he happened to state fairly, "I do not feel confident in you" or explained any concerns in a balanced manner, for example. But if the questions or vote did cause concern, or became a rehash of past history cases, then I would look for Everyking to be responsive to others, and if necessary, for intervention or "sanitization", to ensure it isn't misused. Bottom line is, yes, he has the right to ask sensible and fair questions and to cast a vote of his opinion. Just not a right to misuse or "platform" in doing so. FT2 (Talk 13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad. General questions and voting by you on all candidates would never have raised on eyebrow by anyone. Since Phil Sandifer chose to run for a position where listening to heavy criticism by users is the rule rather than the exception, his ability to answer a few fairly worded question should not be a problem. If the questions cross the line to harassment then our usual user conduct standards as well as the sanction can be applied by the community. Unsolicited advice (so feel free to ignore): Everyking, I encourage you to use your suffrage as a way to impress the Community with your ability to participate in a way that adds good value to important Community matters. I see this as an excellent opportunity for you to change some minds about your ability to review situations and make appropriate insightful comments about a matter. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that it is okay for you to comment on Afd's that Phil Sandifer starts, as long as you comment about the content in question and not him. If needed, we can vote on this.But perhaps, several comments (if others agree) will work. I'm going to notify Phil, so he can let us know if he objects. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Left a message on Phi's talk page. Let's see what he says. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Everyking for not commenting on any Afds in the past. For now, I think we should continue with this practice. So to clarify for the record and to answer your question, Everyking continue your practice of not commenting on Afd's that Phil Sandifer starts. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that everyone is in agreement here: the restriction either does not apply or will not be enforced in relation to questions and voting with respect to the election. I think this can be safely archived now. --bainer (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appeal by Everyking
I request that the ArbCom lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me under the case Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. The restrictions applied to me in this case were first applied in November 2005 and were expanded and extended in July 2006. In November 2007, some of the sanctions expired, but when I asked the ArbCom to remove the other sanctions in February 2008, it chose to uphold them (except for one restriction, which had previously been suspended and was formally lifted when I made that appeal). I do not wish to argue about the merits of the orginal case against me; the opinions held by myself and certain other long-time users (including some former arbitrators) regarding the case's merits are very different, and I don't want to stir up controversy by arguing an appeal on the basis of innocence. I merely ask the ArbCom to recognize that the sanctions serve no purpose at this time and lift them.

These sanctions, although they have no practical effect on my editing, seriously affect my reputation as a Wikipedian; arguably they have made me a community pariah, and I feel that is deeply unfair. While I have been embittered by the imposition of these sanctions, I have continued to edit devotedly and remain firmly loyal to the project. I ask that the ArbCom restore me to the status of a Wikipedian in good standing and that there be no more official tarnish on my reputation. Everyking (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Avruch, the appeal restriction says that it starts at the time of the motion's passage&mdash;I have not made any appeal since then, so by my reasoning I should be able to make an appeal at any time. Only if I made an appeal (like this one), and it failed, would that restriction come into play. Everyking (talk) 04:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I need to discuss some other things here. First of all, some people are raising the issue of the one year appeal restriction. As I explained above, I have not used an appeal since the time that the appeal restriction was imposed and therefore I do not believe it would be fair to interpret that as barring an appeal at this time. The difference in interpretation, apparently, is: does the restriction mean that I have one appeal per year, beginning after one year has passed, or does it means that I have one appeal per year, beginning the date the motion passed? I don't believe the former is a reasonable interpretation.


 * Regarding Phil's statement: I was to stress, as strongly as possible, that I want absolutely nothing to do with him and would be perfectly content to forget his existence entirely. I have no objection to a restriction barring me from interacting with him per se; my only objection, which goes to the very crux of the case back in 2005, is that the restriction is applied only to me and leaves Phil free to say whatever he likes to or about me. From my perspective, it seems that applying sanctions to only one party endorses Phil's claim of "wikistalking", whereas a mutual restriction would be a neutral and fair arrangement that acknowledges that a certain two Wikipedians are better off ignoring each other. In fact, if I had to choose between a mutual restriction and no restriction at all, I would choose a mutual restriction&mdash;that is what I requested back in 2005, and that is what I would prefer now.


 * Phil's allegations about my off-site conduct are totally inappropriate. His blog-format short story about murdering people could be genuinely perceived as disturbing if one did not know the context, but I am happy to acknowledge that when the blog is understood to be fiction there is no basis for serious concern. About 18 months ago, I contacted Phil privately in hopes that we could set aside our differences, but he was not interested in doing that. Well, fine&mdash;as I stated above, I just want to be free of the stigma associated with a one-sided restriction.


 * I also want to state that I am insulted that Phil would blame me for something written on ED about him&mdash;we should not forget that I am also the subject of an ED article that accuses me of illegal conduct, and that article is primarily the result of the misrepresentations about me that were presented/promoted by Phil in the EK2 case back in 2005. If Phil wants to blame me for his ED article, let him take some blame for mine. Personally, I think ED is an abhorrent website that ought to be shut down, and I have repeatedly voted for the deletion of its WP article on the grounds that it is deeply offensive to Wikipedians. Everyking (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If the following reasoning from Phil&mdash;"Regarding a mutual restriction, I have no desire to interact with Everyking, and this should be easily born out by my past contributions - I have not made any moves to interact with him since 2005, and I do not have any desire to."&mdash;justifies the absence of a restriction on him, why should the same reasoning not justify the removal of the restriction on me? Everyking (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I object to the motion presented by Wizardman. What purpose would it serve to add another six or seven weeks to the restrictions if you're voting to lift them now? What will be different on February 22? Furthermore, this motion will not satisfy my goal in making this appeal; my objective is not to expand the range of what I can do&mdash;as I've explained, these sanctions have no practical effect on my editing because I do not wish to do the things they bar me from doing&mdash;but to regain the status of an editor in good standing, without a restraining order in place that effectively brands me a "wikistalker". I ask that the ArbCom consider three options: 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. Everyking (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to Brad, I don't see why various options can't be presented for voting. The one currently presented may have a consensus, but other options may also have a majority. Everyking (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope none of the arbitrators are voting in the belief that they are doing me a favor with this motion. This motion does not offer what I came looking for, which is the restoration of my status as an ordinary editor, and I completely oppose it. Why are none of the three options I listed above being considered?

I don't know how many of the current arbitrators fully understand the background of this case. To be brief: Phil made a long series of controversial admin actions and reported those actions on the AN pages after they had been made. I frequently questioned the wisdom of some of those actions and urged him to go to AN before taking action in such cases. For that, he requested arbitration against me; however, a deal was worked out under the aegis of the arbitrators, according to which I agreed to not comment about Phil, except as part of the dispute resolution process. I made that agreement on the understanding that Phil would do likewise with regard to myself, but a few months later, after I endorsed an RfC against him, Phil made a comment criticizing my endorsement. I then asked Phil to not comment about me, just as I had agreed to not comment about him; he insisted that was not part of the agreement and took me back to arbitration, and the EK3 case was the consequence of that.

Arbitrators voting to keep this restriction in place should bear in mind that I followed my voluntary agreement in 2005 and that it was Phil who torpedoed the agreement by critically commenting about me. At no time did I ever "wikistalk" him; I merely criticized his admin actions on the page designated for discussion of admin actions, and when an agreement was reached I stuck to it. Given those conditions, it is outrageous to keep this restraining order in place three and a half years later. A user cannot be a user in good standing while subject to a restraining order, and if the ArbCom chooses to keep this restriction in place indefinitely, then I will always be something less than a full member of the community. I am appalled that many of the new arbitrators, users who I have sincerely respected, are voting to subject me to this eternal penalty on such a flimsy basis. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I call on the arbitrators to leave this open for a few more days and think over the alternatives I've suggested. If none of this is going to take effect until Feb. 22 anyway, there's no reason to rush it. Everyking (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by A Nobody (talk)
I think that it is a new year and that we should give Everyking a new chance and fresh start. Thus, I support the request made above. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway
The sanctions serve as a deterrent. Lest those who would go to external sites and try to subvert Wikipedia should prevail. --TS 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Avruch
I filed a previous appeal of this case, most of which can be found [here]. There was a previous motion as well.

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). Avruch  T 04:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to Carcharoth's request to Everyking that he stop "wikilawyering" the one year ban, it should be noted that two arbitrators have commented upon it with the obvious belief that this appeal violates that ban. Clarifying his own interpretation of the appeal restriction is not "wikilawyering." You're aware, I'm sure, that as an arbitrator you will encounter in nearly every case quasi-legal standards of writing and interpretation. This might strike you as wikilawyering, but that epithet is mainly relevant on article talkpages where folks involved in a dispute attempt to mechanically impose the details of their own interpretation of policy.

I sympathize with Phil - something similar, minus the Wikipedia context, happened to me. But even Phil does not directly blame Everyking either for the WR thread or what it led to. Everyking is not blameless, and no one (least of all Everyking) has claimed that. But years have passed without incident, and its time to move on. Arbitration should not result in a permanent scarlett letter for good editors with a checkered past. Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 04:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing, to Rlevse: This particular appeal is unrelated to the prior confusion over seemingly conflicting passing motions. That confusion was cleared up. The only other thing I'd say is that the appeal restriction prohibited Everyking only, and others were and are free to make requests on their own initiative. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 04:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Acalamari
I have long believed that the sanctions on Everyking are unnecessary, and I am disappointed that they are still in place here in 2009. Everyking has made more than a grand effort to prove why the sanctions are not necessary, and his behavior over 2008 and 2007 has been, in my opinion, excellent. I do not believe at all that Everyking would spend a long time improving, only to do something to get the sanctions re-instated. He has devoted a lot of his time to building the encyclopedia, and has contbributed more to here than most other editors have done, so it's clear he has the best of intentions at heart.

I should also note that, regarding Everyking's actual standing in the community, he was nominated for adminship in August of last year, where he received 66% support (note that this RfA was supported by a then-new arbitrator; and opposed by a current, and also a now-ex arbitrator). In addition, there were several people who opposed/went neutral that, while they didn't yet believe he was ready to again be an admin, they complimented him on his work, his overall improvement, and many did trust him as an editor. Based on this, I believe that Everyking is in good standing within the community, and that the sanctions on Everyking were further marginalized by the community input there. While the issue of the sanctions cannot be based on that RfA alone, I should mention that it was a chance for the community to judge Everyking, and at least two-thirds of the community support him.

As I said, I do not believe that Everyking would work hard to get his sanctions removed, only to do something to have them re-instated. I am still strongly of the opinion that removing Everyking's remaining sanctions will be beneficial to both him and the encyclopedia. Acalamari 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Phil Sandifer
I've avoided commenting on this issue on-wiki the past few times it has come up, but memories appear short, so I'll make this note public.

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.

And as for the inevitable suggestion that I have some obligation to forgive and forget and extend a second chance, I respectfully suggest that it is not within the remand of the community to dictate what olive branches must be offered by people who have come under genuine real life threat for their service to this project. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a mutual restriction, I have no desire to interact with Everyking, and this should be easily born out by my past contributions - I have not made any moves to interact with him since 2005, and I do not have any desire to. Unless the committee is seriously concerned about the prospect of my interacting with Everyking, I would thus respectfully ask that speculative sanctions not be placed. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment by Cla68
I have interacted with Everyking often in-wiki and I've found him to be a good faith and dedicated editor. I just reviewed the prior arbcom cases he was involved in, and, as far as I can see, the main remaining legacy of those cases appears to be a dispute between Snowspinner (Phil Sandifer) and Everyking. Everyking states that he doesn't want to retry the previous cases, but Phil appears to be trying to do so in his statement above.

In my opinion, there seems to be enough blame to share between the two of them, but for some reason the hammer has fallen more heavily on Everyking than on Phil (in Wikipedia, that is). To resolve this for now, I would suggest suspending all of the sanctions against Everyking except for the one to stay away from Phil. I would propose, in addition, that an identical motion be made to tell Phil to stay away from Everyking. This would put things on an equal and fair footing between the two of them and I would hope would put this entire thing to rest and send two of our most dedicated editors back to improving articles, which both do so well. Cla68 (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside comment by Crystal whacker
I am not familiar with all the history here, but I can say a few things that others have not yet said. The Committee notes that after receiving feedback about the use of his administrator tools, the editor identified as "Vanished user" voluntarily agreed to give up his tools and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should he wish to become an administrator in the future. In this case, a similar approach might work, if Everyking and Phil would agree to it. The wording would need to be tweaked, but to a first approximation, say the following: All remedies in Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 are lifted. The Committee notes that Everyking and Phil Sandifer voluntarily agreed to continue avoiding each other and to consult with the Arbitration Committee should either wish to communicate with the other. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I interpret the motion from February 2008 as saying Everyking must wait one year from that time, until February 2009, but it makes no difference. Everyking's appeal has merit, and it should be answered forthwith.  It would be tragic if, after all the years of waiting, Everyking were forced to wait until 2010 because half the committee wants to hear him now, but the other half wants to wait until February, so Everyking files again in February but then it was not a year since January.  Just get it over with.
 * I think the issue with the restriction barring Everyking from interacting with Phil Sandifer is not the substance of the restriction, but the form - namely, that the Arbitration Committee imposes this restriction on him, without a parallel restriction on Phil. It may be practical to maintain the substance of the restriction while changing the form.  Cla68's suggestion to pass a motion against Phil Sandifer would work.  I have another idea.  In Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, Newyorkbrad suggested a motion to remove the remedies in the case, but added:

Clerk notes

 * Arbitrators should note that neither of the threads Rlevse links to in his comment below was initiated by Everyking (and indeed, I did not see Everyking even comment on the March 2008 thread). - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The sole motion is currently passing, and is due to be enacted in 24 some hours barring vote changes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Could we please have links to the various times this has been before the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the most recent case page, where most of the post-case discussions from here should have been logged, I found several diffs on the rejected requests page, going all the way back to 2004 (some are to do with stuff around the time of the first and second cases) - dates are case dates or when the thread was archived:


 * December 2004 (rejected RFAR)
 * EK1 (January 2005)
 * February 2005 (clarification of EK1)
 * EK2 (March/April 2005)
 * May 2005 (withdrawn RFAR)
 * EK3 (July/August 2005 and then October/November 2005)
 * EK3 motion (December 2005)
 * EK3 motion (July 2006)
 * May 2007 (rejected appeal for EK3)
 * EK3 - music parole suspended for three months (November 2007)
 * February 2008 (EK3 motions passed)
 * March 2008 (problems with EK3 motions pointed out)


 * The last two are the most relevant. The first of those last two was logged at the case page. The last one of those last two should have been logged at the case page, but doesn't seem to have been. Hopefully there are not more appeals or motions missing from this list. Anyway, I followed the discussion the last time (in February and March 2008) about how two possibly contradictory motions were passed. Avoiding that this time would be a good idea. Carcharoth (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It turns out I did miss some appeals (including the ones I thought hadn't been archived). They are listed at the EK3 case talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting a new comment to directly address Phil's statement. Memories are probably short here because some of the new arbs (me included) were either not around, or were not aware at the time, or since, of the incident you refer to. Many thanks for giving your side of the story to us. As you say, you don't know who called the police, but the distress and ongoing problems this caused you, especially when combined with the offsite commentary, should be recognised when considering restrictions on Everyking. I agree with Risker that the avoidance sanction may need to be made permanent, but I am prepared to wait to see whether Everyking will voluntarily agree to such avoidance (or reconfirm such avoidance), with supervision if needed. It should also be noted that there are some things that Everyking could do that, even if it will not affect Phil's stance on this, may help improve Everyking's standing in the community - it is mostly the actions and comments made by Everyking in relation to all this that determine his standing in the community, not just what the Arbitration Committee think of all this. Agree with others that the other remaining sanctions can be lifted. Concern about excessive number of appeals by Everyking also noted, but if there is an opportunity to make progress here, let's take it. One final point: could all parties here (and others) please be sensitive to what is said on-wiki about this and, if necessary, e-mail the arbitration committee to check what is appropriate before posting responses. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding briefly to Everyking's new statement (which was posted while I was writing the above). First point: please stop wikilawyering the year-long ban on appeals. You are being heard here, which should be good enough. As far as I'm concerned, a mutual restriction is up to Phil. I would suggest that if the restriction is maintained and you feel it is one-sided, that you e-mail the Arbitration Committee if you genuinely feel that Phil later comments on you for no good reason. No comment on the other points, as a public back-and-forth will not be productive here, for you or for Phil. Both you and Phil have had the chance to say something and it would now be best to wait and see what can be done, and to let others respond. I would strongly suggest that anything further from Phil or Everyking be e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or be kept very short and to the point. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find merit in the appeal in light of, among other things, the time that has elapsed since the last discussion with no significant further issues involving this editor. Therefore, unless something unexpected comes to my attention in this thread in the next couple of days, I will offer a motion to lift all the remaining sanctions as no longer necessary. Should that motion fail, I will offer a set of alternative motions to vote on lifting each sanction individually, to avoid the confusing and arguably contradictory situation that arose last year. A clerk should kindly notify Phil Sandifer of this thread, as I believe that one of the remaining sanctions involves him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The irony of this being filed on the day the new arbs are empaneled is not lost on me. In this February 2008 ruling it clearly said requests would be reviewed not more than once a year: "Upon request by Everyking, these terms will be reviewed, but no more often than once per year, starting the date this motion passes." Then this March 2008 and this May 2008 thread came along. While I understand there is some confusion regrading this case and it should be cleared up, the numerous requests centering around it concern me. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 20:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support a motion that lifts all sanctions except that related to Phil Sandifer. The situation from whence that sanction arose (there was additional on- and off-wiki behaviour that is not detailed in Phil's statement) is of such a nature that I cannot foresee any interaction between Everyking and Phil Sandifer that will not be perceived by many as a rekindling of hostility, now or in the future. As such, I would not be opposed to considering the avoidance sanction to be permanent. Risker (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not yet 22 February. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In view of the background, the Phil Sandifer sanction doesn't seem so onerous to me and I can see advantages in making it permanent. How does the project gain from its lifting? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 06:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * From email: Cool Hand Luke is recused from any Everyking issue.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 10:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can recall, I've never had any significant direct contact with Everyking. My comments about him have occurred primarily during RFA and during Committee work. So I do not think that I need to recuse because of a bias formed from a personal discord between us. It is also worth noting that I've made comments about Phil Sandifer while doing Committee work so there is no reason to think that I would have a basis for favoring one side of this dispute over the other. But since the point of the Committee work is dispute resolution, and I think that there will be a better outcome in this situation if I recuse, I'm to do it. I'm doing this because Everyking appears to have the view that he is being unfairly targeted by past members of ArbCom, individually and as a group. So with my sincerest hope that if I abstain from commenting and have no involvement in this matter, the outcome will be better accepted by Everyking and he will be able to move on, I recuse. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Decline, jumping the gun (per Sams comment) and the queue (sorry, but we have other fish to fry this week). John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion

 * There are 17 active arbitrators, 2 of whom are recused, so 8 votes are a majority. 17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

1) With the exception of remedy X in the case Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3 titled "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner", all sanctions against Everyking are lifted, effective February 22, 2009.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Wizardman  17:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 17:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Risker (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The effective date of February 22 represents one year from the date of adoption of the previous motion. I do not believe that postponing the effective date is really necessary, but I far prefer this symbolic action intended to reflect the limitation contained in the prior motion over the likelihood that without this proviso, the present motion might well be defeated and we would be forced to revisit this entire situation again in the future. It bears emphasis that the common-sense principles underlying some of the sanctions being lifted against Everyking should nonetheless be followed by all users. Finally, no inferences should be drawn from the consensus that the sanction relating to Everyking and Phil Sandifer should remain in place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Nothing is gained by postponing resolution of this request on procedural grounds, but no compelling argument has been put forward why the previous remedies should be lifted earlier than originally outlined.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per Brad and Coren. Per the previous motion filed by Everyking, suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in "good standing" be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered "in good standing". Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. There's no need to wait for Feb. 22 to agree on something we can agree on today. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  15:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Note: Motion passes, case page will be updated on February 22 to reflect the lifting of the sanctions in question. Daniel (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

EK3 clarification

 * Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Statement by Everyking
Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.

The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.

One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments&mdash;before me&mdash;on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?

How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding to Jayvdb, I am hoping that the ArbCom will state that I am allowed to participate in AfDs started by Phil Sandifer; contrary to what you say, this does in fact need clarification, as it seems to be understood at present that I am not allowed to do that. In November 2008, FloNight told me to not comment on AfDs started by Phil, although I do not know whether the other arbitrators agreed with her about that. Regarding the matter of "editing interaction", that is exactly the kind of thing I need clarified. If Phil has "recently edited" an article and I have not, does that I mean I am banned from contributing to that article?


 * While it is true that I was not blocked during 2008, this is because I was extremely careful about avoiding any kind of editorial proximity to Phil Sandifer, and on a few occasions when I did edit a page after he did, such as on ANI, I was quite nervous about possible consequences (possibly I escaped being blocked only because no one noticed). I feel that I should not have to deal with that kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Phil, these are not just hypothetical situations. In April 2008 there was a case where Phil nominated a slew of articles for deletion (Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election_controversy and irregularities) and I was unable to vote. I contacted the ArbCom privately seeking permission to vote, but my request was ignored. Furthermore, this is a constant issue on a variety of pages such as ANI, where I am simply not sure what is allowed and feel that simply registering my opinion about a matter on which Phil has already commented is a dangerous gamble. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to Coren, I have pointed to a specific instance immediately above. It is deeply unfair to keep me under this scarlet letter restriction indefinitely and then punish me further by effectively upholding the most extreme interpretation of the ruling. To date I have respected the ruling very carefully, even when that means excluding myself from participation in various matters that interest me, and I would expect the ArbCom to acknowledge that by clarifying the situation in favor of a less severe interpretation. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Responding to Vassyana, yes, I am aware of that and do not consider it an appropriate method under ordinary circumstances. However, I have been trying to get the ArbCom to address this problem for years, and now some of you are telling me that, because I refrained assiduously from editing the same pages as Phil, there are no specific incidents to consider and therefore nothing can be done. In other words, I stand to be punished for following the restriction so strictly; it's like keeping someone under house arrest and then, when they ask to be released from house arrest, telling them that there is no need for that, because they haven't been leaving the house anyway. That's ridiculous, and I'm not willing to stand around and suffer for my own caution, so I figured under the circumstances that it would be best to give the ArbCom a specific incident to consider.


 * I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements. Everyking (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way&mdash;I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if the ArbCom does not clarify the situation adequately, I will have to post a request for clarification each time I wish to edit a page that Phil Sandifer has edited, just to obtain permission in that specific instance. I think that imposes an excessive burden on both myself and the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants me to stay away from articles Phil Sandifer has edited, I will respect that (he seldom edits articles anyway, to be frank), provided it only applies to recent edits and doesn't cover articles Phil edited months or years ago (certain cases could still arise where I might have to seek ArbCom permission, though, for example on a high-traffic article that is the subject of some immediate wiki-controversy). However, AfDs, administrative discussions, and policy discussions are a different matter, and I feel as a member of the community I should be permitted to express my opinion whenever I see fit, as long as I do not engage with Phil Sandifer in the process of doing so. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also registered my opinion at the Giano II RfC, which was started by Phil. As I have long held a strong and vocal opinion about Giano issues, I think it would be appalling if the ArbCom were to rule that I could not endorse a viewpoint in this instance, simply because Phil has involved himself. Everyking (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge Tznkai not to close this right now. I want to take this opportunity to ask the ArbCom to clarify my status as a Wikipedia editor further. Will it consider voting on a motion that would formally designate me as a user in good standing or express in some sense the idea that the remaining restriction should not be perceived in such a way as to lessen my community standing? I would also like for the ArbCom to consider a motion that would observe that there is no basis for the allegations made against me in recent weeks&mdash;in connection with my appeal&mdash;regarding off-wiki actions. This is particularly important because, by retaining the restriction, it could easily appear that the ArbCom has endorsed those allegations; furthermore, the ArbCom should not allow its pages to become a venue for baseless smears. Everyking (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer
If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.

Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rootology
Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This request being closed within the next 12 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The outstanding remedy prevents "commenting .. about", or "interacting with" Phil Sandifer. If you both find yourself at the same xfD, both parties are expected to only comment on the article or page itself rather than the editor, so no clarification is needed there.  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.Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines 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.  Everyking, you mentioned that you have needed to err on the side of caution because "In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to [your] disadvantage".  You havent been blocked often, so I am wondering when has this been interpreted to your disadvantage?  Was it misinterpreted at all during 2008?  i.e. did you have any close calls with someone threatening to block? John Vandenberg (chat) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there are specific incidents where implementation of this restriction has caused problems because of vagarities or ambiguities, I see no clarification to be made. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion that I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements seems eminently reasonable, and I would have expect the current restriction to be interpreted exactly that way. In fact, I see no reason to believe it ever was interpreted differently.   &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyking, you've been around quite long enough to know that performing edits just to make a point or test the boundaries of restrictions is frowned upon by our community norms. It certainly isn't the way to get a favorable response. That said, has the restriction been unduly burdensome to you? How, specifically? (Being very honest, the AfD examples don't convince me. Phil nominates relatively very few articles for deletion and it's not like there's any shortage of AfDs to comment upon.) Can you give examples of how the restriction has been used against you as you assert? Presuming the restriction stays in place as is, since the purportedly vague nature of the restriction is a main part of your point, what bright line boundaries would you suggest? I should state openly that I'm skeptical as a general rule when it comes to claims of difficulty/unfairness in disentangling. Wikipedia is a huge and sprawling place with a ridiculous number of activities and topics to participate in. It should not be a herculean burden to disengage from and avoid another editor. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyking, thank you for the response. I understand your point and the accompanying frustration, but the unaswered questions are quite answerable. You're asserting (if I'm mistaken, please correct me) that the restriction has been both unduly burdensome and used against you unfairly. All that I'm asking is that you substantiate the assertions. This doesn't require a test case. (To draw on your example, someone under house arrest doesn't need skip custody to go to the grocer in order to assert a reasonable need to visit the grocer.) Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agree with the statements of Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. Otherwise, consider my comments above as restated. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, Everyking should be free to comment on matters (including AfDs) even if Phil is on the same page, but should still avoid interacting with or commenting on Phil. There are also some standard situations that Everyking should usually avoid: articles created by Phil, AfDs started by Phil, discussions started by Phil, and so on (this is not intended to be, nor can it be, a comprehensive list). Common sense says that Phil should do the same to avoid interaction with Everyking. If either Everyking or Phil need clarification on specific points, they should feel free to e-mail the arbitration committee, while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past. Please don't engage in deliberate testing of the boundaries of this restriction, but do make a note of situations that come up during your normal editing habits. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As per Carcharoth, posting on high traffic communal pages should not be a problem if there is no direct interaction noted or implied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Both Everyking and Phil Sandifer know that. I don't believe someone would be able to define or present a detailed and comprehensive list of all possible scenarios where the boundaries get crossed or where restrictions get violated (i.e. commenting on the editor or bringing back history and old disputes). However, many would be able to judge and confirm whether boundaries get unjustly crossed when they really get crossed. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this request for clarification begins with a misapprehension. To my knowledge, no arbitrator believes nor has anyone else suggested that Everyking is "a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of [his] ability" (as stated above), or "a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals" (as suggested on another website). It bears emphasis that each and every one of the ArbCom restrictions on Everyking has been lifted (or will technically be lifted as of next month) by unanimous vote of the committee, with the sole exception of this one which the committee chose to leave in place at present. Nor is there merit to any suggestion that the restriction has been left in place simply because Everyking previously criticized actions of other administrators, and particularly not because of criticisms that were levied in 2005 (before many of the arbitrators, including myself, had even started editing Wikipedia), nor merely because Everyking has participated on an external site often critical of Wikipedia (as have I). Beyond that, I am disinclined to review on-wiki here the events of three years ago, some of which I was not aware of until this most recent clarification request, as I do not believe that either Everyking or anyone else or the process would benefit from my doing so. With respect to the specific request for clarification, the limited remaining restriction on Everyking should be interpreted in a reasonable, and reasonably narrow, fashion. 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. Hopefully few if any close calls will arise and the issue will remain largely moot, as I gather it has been for awhile except in these modification/clarification threads themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Everyking
In January 2009, I appealed to the ArbCom to lift all the remaining sanctions applied to me as a result of the EK3 case in November 2005. The ArbCom declined to do so, although it agreed to some easing of the severity of the restrictions. More than six months have passed since then, and nothing has occurred with regard to the case; I have not been blocked or warned in any way. The sanctions serve no purpose and exist in relation to a dispute that has been dead for several years, and I once again request that the ArbCom release me from them. Everyking (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why Brad says he wants to maintain my sanctions for reasons he won't state publicly. If he thinks I should be under a perpetual restriction, I'd like to know why. There is nothing pertaining to any of this that I wouldn't want to be discussed openly on-wiki, and I feel like the ArbCom's decision-making on this issue is being based on things that I'm not even aware of, which is unfair. Everyking (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to Roger: you guys voted to lift all the non-Phil restrictions in January, including the appeal limitation. Everyking (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Coren: if this is "an entirely moot issue in the long forgotten past", why do you want to keep me under this restriction? It seems inexplicable to say that the restriction serves no purpose while also maintaining that it should remain in place. Everyking (talk) 20:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the comments saying that the restriction is only in effect because I have appealed it numerous times are very puzzling. Some of you seem to be saying that you want to keep me under restriction purely out of spite, because you are annoyed by my appeals. That's like telling a prisoner that the authorities had planned to release him, but since he had the nerve to ask for his release, they've decided to keep him behind bars. I don't understand how such an attitude has any relationship to justice or the resolution of the issue&mdash;clearly it's unreasonable to hold someone's own appeals against them, as if they were doing something wrong in seeking redress when they felt they had been wrongfully punished. Everyking (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Brad: if your objection is based on "the substance of the matter", I'd like to know what that substance is. I don't understand your unwillingness to disclose your reasoning. Shouldn't a person be allowed to know why they are being punished? Everyking (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Dominic: I would be perfectly happy with an expiration date, even one that envisioned a substantial timeframe; perhaps the most grating aspect of this restriction is that it is effectively a lifetime penalty, a scarlet letter that I must wear forever and ever, and it is especially grating that I am singled out for such an extreme treatment when expiration dates are almost always given to others. Everyking (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dominic
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. Dominic·t 22:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cool Hand Luke
Carcharoth: I think Wizardman is right. The original incident might have earned an editor a long restriction, but that has already run for several years. I think the point of the motion it set a definite endpoint. In this case, time served plus one year should be more than adequate.

You make it seem as if motion 3 has only been proposed to get rid of Everyking. I happen to know that he doesn't appreciate it, and neither do I. Cool Hand Luke 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth: I agree. The best place for Everyking to negotiate this is on Wikipedia. This is his request, and if he really thinks that it would make him worse off, he should discuss why that is. I am recused, and intend to remain recused on matters involving WR regulars. Cool Hand Luke 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Thatcher

 * 1) 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.
 * 2) If this is not about the principal, and Everyking really wants to attack Phil again, is it reasonable that he would hang fire for four years, waiting for the approval of a body that he does not respect, or is it more likely he would have found a more immediate outlet, such as sockpuppets, blogs, or other web sites?
 * 3) Granted that Everyking's constant appeals, raising of hypotheticals and rare situations to test the bounds of the remedy, and so forth, are annoying as hell.  Why not just lift the restriction, so he has nothing more to complain about?
 * 4) As each of Everyking's restrictions has been lifted, he has not suddenly gone on a rampage of bad behavior (uninformed criticism of admins, Ashley Simpson, etc).  Why not assume that this really is a matter of principle and that he has no intention of attacking Phil?  With no special language or remedies, he can be held to the same standard of communication and conduct as any other user or admin. Should he prove to be unworthy of the good faith assumption, you can close the door on him once and for all.
 * 5) Are you worried about appearing to have given in to pressure based on persistent annoyance?  (That if someone annoys you enough, you'll do what he wants to get him out of your hair?)  Neither Arbcom nor Everyking has handled this especially well over the past four years.  Here, as in many other struggles, the side to let it go first will probably come out the winner. If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking proves unable to constrain himself under the usual standards of conduct toward his fellow editors, whomever they may be, then Everyking loses and Arbcom wins.   If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking behaves himself, everyone wins. Thatcher 16:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * notified per request of Arbitrator Risker. Daniel (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not quickly locating an archive of our most recent discussion in which most of the restrictions on Everyking were lifted; could either Everyking or a Clerk please provide a link to that discussion, and could a Clerk please make sure it is archived properly. My recollection, though, is that the only restriction that remains in effect is that against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer. Is that correct? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul August has been kind enough to point me to the motion we adopted earlier this year. (It probably should still be archived more prominently.) This confirms that the restriction against Everyking's interacting with Phil Sandifer ("Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner"), a ruling that is to be construed reasonably, is the only remaining restriction on Everyking that is still in effect, even though the request above repeatedly uses the plural. 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. No inference of any current misconduct by Everyking should be read into that position. If this matter is to be pursued further, Phil Sandifer must be advised of this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By way of clarification of at least my vote, my position that we properly lifted all other restrictions but that there is reason to retain this one, is based on the substance of the matter and not merely on consideration of the timing or repetition of the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be voting and commenting on the motions by tonight. I had expected to get to it yesterday, but got sidetracked by The Rambling Man discussion on BN and the resulting motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse on this request to ease Everyking's concerns that past arbitrators unfairly influenced past decisions about him. Hopefully, the recusal will make it easier for him to accept the decision one way or the other. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that this would be an old and forgotten issue if it wasn't being raised at regular intervals. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with my colleagues. I also note that Everyking may appeal the restriction annually and July 2009 is well short of the next review date, January 2010.  Roger Davies  talk 17:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No Why so soon after the last one? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am lost, what other sanctions are you referring to (i.e. non-phil one(s))? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll repeat what I said last time: "'...suggest some thought is given to when and how any future appeals on this remaining sanction should be heard (i.e. to prevent excessive and repeat filings of appeals over the coming year). One other thought has just occurred to me. Despite this remedy remaining in place, would a motion saying that Everyking is a Wikipedian in 'good standing' be possible or make any sense? The protection that Phil desires would still be in place, while Everyking would get his wish to be considered 'in good standing'.' - Carcharoth (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)" We didn't in the end explicitly restrict Everyking to appealing once a year, but we should have done. There are certain editors who appeal their restrictions again and again and again. In the end, they do their own cause far more damage by that, than any of the original actions could have done. Suggest a motion be proposed to set the date of the next appeal at January 2010, and once per year after that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Phil Sandifer has been notified (and has edited at least once since notification), and a reasonable amount of time has passed since notification, I am now going to propose three motions to try and sort things out here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke, if Everyking has objections to these motions, I am more than willing to discuss them with him here. On a technical matter, could you confirm whether you are recused or not, as that will affect the majority for the motions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much reiterating what others have said, the only reason anyone might be holding you to this issue is because you keep bringing it up over and over. I'm also not convinced that if this restriction were appealed, it would be the end of it. Is this appeal really just to remove this restriction and this being the end? Wizardman  21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am leaning toward Dominic's opinion. That said, since this issue originates from years ago I wouldn't care about the frequency of appeals. However, I need to know from you Everyking the reason why you feel the remaining restriction would be ended; is it because you are planning to contact Phil Sandifer some day in the near future or because it is merely a matter of justice (i.e. an editor in good standing)? --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  05:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the remedy, titled "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner", is lifted, effective immediately:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * On long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that this sanction no longer serves a purpose, and is nothing more than an irritant for Everyking while doing nothing to protect the community or the encyclopedia. The original ban on commenting on Phil Sandifer, taken in context, was reasonable; its continuation is less so, given the context of Everyking having changed many of his editing practices since that time. In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer, and he noted that an off-wiki attempt at reconciliation had been unsuccessful. I do not expect Phil Sandifer to "forgive" Everyking for his past actions. At the same time, I expect Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer, and Everyking can expect that he will lose much of his regained reputation if he fails to do so. Risker (talk) 07:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already got the answer to my question above... Per Risker: In January 2009, Everyking stated that he has no intention or desire of interacting with Phil Sandifer and [Risker] expects Everyking to keep his word to continue to avoid direct interaction with Phil Sandifer). --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After rethinking it, this is my second choice. It has been a long time now. Wizardman  21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Proposed to complete the range of options. Carcharoth (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Continuing to oppose this option, although Thatcher makes an excellent point that the lifting of previous sanctions hasn't resulted in resumption of the restricted behaviour by Everyking. However, I would still like to hear that from Everyking himself. As regards Thatcher's fifth point, "If Arbcom lets go first and Everyking proves unable to constrain himself", that is not a win for ArbCom. We will be rightly criticised for having lifted the restriction, and it will be a loss for the hypothetical editors that feel the effects of that lifting of the restriction. What I see motion 3 as being is ArbCom letting go, and then Everyking letting go, and then the restriction expiring naturally. That would be a true win-win situation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like a period of quiet as noted by option 3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wizardman 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still very much unimpressed by the argument that such a restriction places a pall over an editor after such a long time. In fact, were it not for the fact that it gets trumpeted by Everyking himself whenever it falls off the front page, it would have been long forgotten by the collective memory (unless, of course, negative interaction with Phil were to take place).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 2
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, and that Everyking shall be limited to an appeal once per year, with the next appeal due no earlier than a year after this motion is enacted; with subsequent appeals separated by an interval of one year:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * Proposed. Second choice compared to motion 3. Carcharoth (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Equal second with (3)  Roger Davies  talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Prefer 3 or 4. Wizardman  21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Risker (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many appeals but they are not excessively often. A better restriction would be one requiring the raising of novel reasons in support of any new appeal. --bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Reminiscent of what we have already, which feels a bit like going round in circles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 3
Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire two years after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of two years will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * Proposed (with thanks to Dominic for the initial suggestion). First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Equal second with (2)  Roger Davies  talk 04:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, prefer #4. Wizardman  21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Second, prefer #4. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In second place to 4. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Would prefer to lift this entirely; if it is not revoked entirely, then I do not support extending it any longer than one year. Risker (talk) 07:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * After further thought, I agree with Risker. Wizardman  21:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Motion 4

 * Motion enacted - Tiptoety  talk 00:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction:


 * There are 13 active arbitrators and 2 are recused in matters relating to amendment of this decision, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * 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)
 * Second choice to #1. Risker (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First choice.  Roger Davies  talk 13:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am okay with this one too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I am unconvinced that it is necessary, or desirable, to remove the restriction in the first place; but if Everyking can drop the matter for a year then letting the restriction lapse is not something I would oppose. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, switching to support. A year to allow this to quietly lapse is probably enough. 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. Similarly, Phil should comment soon if he has objections. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * 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. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * bainer (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Recuse
 * FloNight (as stated above)
 * Cool Hand Luke (as stated above)

Arbitrator views and discussion of motions

 * Posting here with some further thoughts on this:
 * (1) If the motions above had not been posted, it is likely that the entire request would have been archived within a week as stale, and the status quo would have prevailed. Thus whatever objections anyone may have to the motions, at least these motions are moving things forward rather than leaving this issue unresolved to come back in a few months.
 * (2) It is worth reading through the history to this, which is what I did before posting the motions. Brad, above, stated that the most recent motion is found here and should be "be archived more prominently". However, the motion was archived at the time: see here. The subsequent discussion was archived here. As I said, I found the previous motion and the accompanying requests on the case talk page. The archival links to those two requests are here and here. Everyking, please read through both those earlier requests you made, and look at the collapsed details box where I trace some of the history of your appeals. Also, note the statements made by Phil Sandifer at each of those two most recent requests.
 * (3) It is the points raised at the previous requests by Brad and Phil Sandifer that led me to make an extended period of quiet about this whole matter a condition for the restriction being lifted. Everyking's repeated appeals of the restriction are, in my view, raising the matter again and again, and this shows an inability to let go of the past and move on. That is directly relevant to a restriction of this nature. If Everyking can demonstrate that he has previously been able to go a whole year without raising this matter on-wiki, then I will likely support motion 4.
 * (4) In general, the matter of repeated appeals has become a problem for ArbCom. This may be because there are lots of previous decisions that were poor or could be improved, or it may simply be because of the large history of decisions that has been built up over the years, or it could be because some restrictions lack expiration dates. One way to tackle this might be to have pre-appeal considerations, where an appellant indicates how long it has been since the previous appeal (or since the case in question), indicates what new material there is for consideration, and then ArbCom takes a preliminary vote on whether to hear the appeal. If the appeal is rejected out-of-hand as "too soon" or "nothing new here", then the appellant should be given a date by when they can re-appeal, and guidance as to what is needed (the problem here being that many people are not willing to listen to ArbCom or work with them - those that do, tend to get their restrictions lifted). Either that, or expiration dates should be built into all restrictions. That would avoid both the situation of repeated appeals being filed too soon, and appellants being unjustly penalised for excessive appealing, and it would also avoid the situations where indefinite restrictions have to be appealed, rather than the sanctioned editor having the option to wait it out while doing productive work elsewhere.
 * In other words, I am aware that Everyking has been able to restrict himself to only filing appeals for the past 4 years. I am also aware that he does lots of good work on Wikipedia, and is (as I have said before) in good standing. 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. As I've said before, I would be more inclined to support motion 4 if Everyking raised his objections to the motions here, with us. I'm sure he has many questions, and I (for one) would be more than happy to answer them here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

End of case?
Motion 4 was deemed to have passed one year ago today, on 15 August 2009. According to that motion, there was only one remaining restriction, and that restriction would expire one year from that point, provided I did not appeal the restriction in the meantime. Well, since then I've made no appeals, and one year has passed, so my understanding is that I am no longer subject to any ArbCom restrictions and am now a user in good standing again, for the first time since January 2005. Is my understanding correct? Everyking (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct; the remaining restriction has now expired. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Everyking 3
Permanent link

Initiated by  Scott Mac at 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy "Everyking will not interact with or comment about Snowspinner" (as amended)


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * 

Amendment 1

 * "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner, on any page in Wikipedia for a length of one year. 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. The duration of this remedy is to be reset following an unsuccessful appeal of this restriction."


 * I wish to suggest that the above restriction, which has only recently lapsed, be extended indefinitely, to read:
 * "Everyking shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer. Should he violate the letter, or spirit, of this remedy 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. This remedy shall be indefinite, and without further appeal." 

Statement by Scott MacDonald
Original statement Comments removed.

Given this, I am happy to withdraw this application. That Everyking has realised the unwisdom of pursuing this in any forum, renders it moot. There's no need to rub salt in. He's done the right thing.--Scott Mac 07:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Everyking
For me, the restriction is effectively indefinite, because for obvious reasons it would be deeply unwise for me to ever get into any kind of tangle with Phil Sandifer again. I regard the expiry of the restriction as merely a symbolic victory that restores me to the status of an editor in good standing. And I don't believe the ArbCom would claim to have jurisdiction over off-wiki remarks. Everyking (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to Scott, I believe in following the civility policy and treating other editors with respect here on-wiki, so I'm not going to participate in some kind of exchange of insults with him. Everyking (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Phil: it might not have occurred to him that, having been under a restriction for the previous five years, I haven't really had the opportunity to "get over it". He was never put under any comparable restriction, so it might be hard for him to relate to the feeling of being aggrieved for five years and then finally being released and having a moment of off-wiki gloating over it. I don't really know what to say to the rest of Phil's statement. Perhaps it would put his mind at ease if I reassured him, once again, that I really do not want anything whatsoever to do with him? Everyking (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be more appropriate to restrict Phil Sandifer from talking about me? I have never used this level of invective in talking about him, or anyone else, on-wiki or off. Compared to the severity of these personal attacks, my off-wiki gloating that stirred all this up seems entirely unworthy of notice.


 * For the record: I have never "stalked" Phil Sandifer. I have never done anything more than make sporadic snide comments about him&mdash;initially (in 2005) because I was concerned about his use of admin powers, later (since then) because I was frustrated and annoyed by being continually subjected to a restriction that seemed senseless to me. Even given the history of bad feeling between us, it is rather shocking to see someone distort and misrepresent events so egregiously, portraying some online criticism and jokes made in an entirely harmless context as dangerous stalking. Everyking (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Responding to Brad: I have said for years that there is no purpose in any interaction between Phil and I, because for reasons of history and personality it is quite unlikely that anything productive could ever come of it. In that sense, the restriction was always perfectly reasonable. My objection was centered on the one-sided nature of the restriction, which I felt acted as a unjustified smear on my work and reputation on this website, as it implied that I was at fault and Phil needed protection. Some people see that five years has passed and wonder why it would still be an issue, but to me, it was an issue every single day up until 15 August 2010, because I had that smear attached to my account for the entire time. Phil's memory has dimmed more than mine because he's had little reason to think about this stuff over the last five years, but the restriction gave me plenty of reason to continue thinking about it.

I'm perfectly happy to make a pledge that I will not discuss Phil Sandifer here on Wikipedia (I've already pledged that many times, and stuck to it, but I will make the pledge again, for the record), and I will also pledge to refrain from discussing him on other websites. I would like it very much if he would make the same pledge with regard to myself. I would also like it if some of Phil's comments are redacted when this request is archived, for obvious reasons. Everyking (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer
Amusingly, had this case not been filed I'd have had no idea Everyking was back at it.

In any case, the history here is relevant. Everyking's treatment of me was, I believe, one of the Arbcom's first cases of wikistalking. His stalking of me was particularly pernicious, and its spilling over onto WR is, to my mind, relevant, as he was part of the echo chamber there that helped escalate someone into getting me harassed by the police. I don't feel like digging back through the quotes there, but he had a quote along the lines of me being a sick and depraved individual. Someone else speculated that it would be easy to force me out of my PhD program. And the thread eventually turned into someone calling the police in my town in a deliberate attempt to get me harassed by them.

That was four years ago. I've had no contact with Everyking since then, and apparently his obsession with me is undimmed. Which, again, I wouldn't have known were it not for this - because the correct thing to do with a dangerous stalker is avoid them. Well, after seeking a restraining order, which, to be fair, I'll do if anything involving him crosses into the real world again. The one-sidedness of this needs to be stressed - other than the fact that it involved Ashley Simpson, I have no memory of what I did to offend Everyking, and I'm fairly sure whatever it was happened five or more years ago. Prior to today, I have not thought about Everyking in ages. He mostly comes up, in my mind, when for some reason I am thinking about Ashley Simpson's "Yeah Yeah," the only song of hers I remember, and I remember Everyking, that loon on Wikipedia.

Everyking's memories of long-ago perceived slights seems to outdo my own.

In any case, the purpose of the communication restriction on Everyking was always simple - Everyking's presence makes Wikipedia no longer a safe space for me. One should not have to choose between personal safety and editing Wikipedia. It is clear from his behavior that engagement with Everyking endangers my personal safety. To be honest, I am afraid of him. Because being afraid of someone who still stalks your Twitter and insults your teeth (WTF?) after five years of minimal contact with you is a sensible thing to do.

Not that I'm a terribly active editor at this point. But the job of the arbcom does include protecting editors and maintaining a safe space. Everyking is apparently a threat to that. Certainly seeing his recent behavior makes me disinclined to edit at all on Wikipedia knowing that doing so is inviting contact with a stalker. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the question of jurisdiction, although it is clear that the Arbcom has no jurisdiction as such over WR, that seems to me to merely be a statement of plain fact - the arbcom cannot prevent actions on WR. On the other hand, the arbcom has acted to impose on-wiki sanctions for off-wiki behavior in the past - indeed, if I recall, Everyking lost administrator status for comments on WR. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "I have no interest in you, I just still read your Twitter five years after my last contact with you and insult you on random messageboards" seems a strong contender for least sincere sentiment ever. If Everyking truly had no desire to have anything to do with me, he wouldn't have gone looking on social networking sites to see if I have a presence on them.


 * I mean, let me boil this down. Everyking is an obsessed stalker who has continued to criticize and rail against me based on a handful of interactions all five years or older. He has constructed an elaborate fantasy of my personal life based on shreds of online evidence he has obsessively scavenged for. Despite having never met me and seeing all of two photos of me, he comments elaborately on my weight, dental record, and personal habits. And he has extended this stalking behavior in the past to Wikipedia. What possible reason does the arbcom have to think that, given such a disturbing past record, future behavior is going to change?


 * Everyking's behavior is dangerous. To me. It has been for years. The arbcom has consistently protected me from this behavior on Wikipedia. The restriction was allowed to expire out of a hope that his behavior might have changed in the past five years. He responded to its expiration by firmly demonstrating that his dangerous obsession is undimmed. Any hope that his behavior might have changed is, by any standard of evidence, squashed at this point. If the arbcom intends not to restore the restriction, I would ask them what reassurance they can offer me that editing on Wikipedia is not actively courting interaction with my stalker. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Cla68 - I have no problem with that. I already miss the days of not thinking about him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68
It's obvious that EK and Phil don't like each other very much judging from the indirect jabs they both launched at each other in their statements above. So, if the Committee decides to vote on some kind of sanction here, please make it apply to both editors this time, not just one of them. I think that would be better in both the short and long term. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Lar
This is a tempest in a teapot. No, in a teacup. No, in a teaspoon. Don't arbitrators have better things to do than write exceedingly long analyses of this minor matter? Focus, people. I'm not without sympathy for Phil Sandifer's situation, but given a choice between personal safety and editing the wiki, the choice is obvious. No, it's not "edit the wiki anyway". ++Lar: t/c 02:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz
Re. Carcharoth: I think this is a situation where a quick, relatively discreet decision, either way, is more helpful to all involved than a potentially drawn out discussion on public noticeboards. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
I suggest that the Admins and Arbitrators who are active on Wikipedia Review discuss this matter there. Count Iblis (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other editor (2)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Scott, we have not traditionally sanctioned individuals merely for comments made at WR, however reprehensible those might be. I'd like to know whether you believe this approach should be altered in the general case; or, if not, why you believe this particular situation warrants an exception from the general rule. Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we do not have jurisdiction over at WR. I consider the comments to be ill-advised, petty, and pretty much think that it proves that the restriction WAS necessary..... I have to say, that EK recognizes the "facts on the ground", so to speak. The facts are that while the restriction itself has expired,that any edits on WP that would violate the restriction if it WAS still in effect would still lead to him being sanctioned harshly. SirFozzie (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll comment later tonight. In the interim, I direct the parties not to post further on-wiki regarding this matter. I also strongly urge them not to comment further in any public forum. Any further communications that are necessary can be sent to us by e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Every aspect of this matter is dispiriting, in part because it reflects very badly on a long-term contributor, in part because it is creating emotional distress, and in part because it is so needless. When users misbehave in the course of a heated content dispute, we can tell them not to misbehave, but at some level a motive is explicable. Here, I read the Wikipedia Review thread over the past couple of days and I read some of the comments above and I feel nothing but sadness and bewilderment, mixed with a tinge of anger.
 * The committee imposed a series of sanctions on Everyking in a series of cases that took place well before I started editing, much less arbitrating. Soon after I became an arbitrator, Everyking petitioned to lift all those restrictions. My view was that the problems with Everyking's editing that inspired most of the restrictions had been alleviated and that those restrictions were no longer needed&mdash;a conclusion that the rest of the committee also came to, though in some instances more slowly.
 * The exception to my view was the restriction on Everyking's referring on-wiki to Snowspinner (I will refer to the user in question by that former username throughout), which I thought should remain in effect. I based my conclusion largely on a particular remark that Everyking had made about Snowspinner on Wikipedia Review, in a now-infamous thread there that has been referred to above. To be very clear, Everyking did not join in, and in fact commendably sought to discourage, some of the more lurid allegations and speculations that were made in that discussion. But a particular comment of his there crossed the line from off-wiki discussions over which Wikipedia has no jurisdiction, into the type of thing that we do, when left with no choice, have to take into account in our decision-making so as to protect our contributors. Consistent with my past practice, it would serve no useful purpose to further publicize the particular comment, and I would prefer not to do so, though I probably will describe it in some detail if Everyking unwisely continues to poke at the matter. But it was the sort of comment that in my view justified a permanent restriction on Everyking's having anything to do with Snowspinner.
 * Eventually, enough time went by that the committee decided to let this last restriction on Everyking's editing lapse quietly. In the interim, Everyking had made substantial content contributions to Wikipedia, had regained community trust to the point of having passed a new RfA, and was not displaying the behaviors that had led to most of the sanctions originally imposed against him. And also in the interim, Snowspinner, for whatever reason, was spending less time on editing Wikipedia. To the extent that Everyking believed that his criticisms of Snowspinner's editing or administrating in and after 2005 were sound at that time, a matter I have not evaluated and which at this stage would not be of even historical interest, by 2010 they had also long since become utterly moot. Prior to this week, Snowspinner had not made a single edit in three months and had a grand total of one logged administrator action this entire calendar year.
 * For this reason, Everyking's comments about Snowspinner this week on Wikipedia Review, which have been well summarized by others, were even more gratuitously unnecessary and hurtful than might otherwise be the case. I can only agree with those who have categorized these snide and hurtful comments shortly after the restriction expired as the clearest possible vindication of the view that the restriction remained necessary all these years in the first place. The comments also had the predictable effect of upsetting Snowspinner when his attention was called to them, and provoking him in the context of this request to a most unhappy reaction, and arguably something of a rhetorical overreaction (the word "stalker," in particular, should not have been used). In sum, I cannot imagine what possessed Everyking to think that even his initial comments this week, must less the whole succession of comments, was a good or reasonable idea. This episode should be remembered, if at all, as a lesson in the type of conduct that no Wikipedian, and certainly no administrator, should engage in.
 * That being said, I am not sure whether adopting a formal motion at this time is necessary (although if a motion is proposed, I would not support a restriction on Snowspinner, whose only comments were on this very noticeboard after he received what I'm sure was unwelcome news that his name had returned to the arbitration pages). Perhaps we can do without a motion so long as there is an immediate and definitive halt to this situation. Everyking has already stated here that he has no intention of mentioning Snowspinner on Wikipedia again, and I assure him that he will be strictly held to his promise. It would be very, very much for the best if he were to further promise, immediately and definitively, on this page, that he will not refer to Snowspinner again in any public forum, and if he were to keep that promise is well.
 * I respectfully disagree with my colleague's suggestion below that this matter be referred for a community discussion. This request is not suited for a community-based decision for several reasons: first, as Scott MacDonald points out, it would require these two editors to resume sniping at each other in a highly watched public forum; second, the community has no way of evaluating the events of 2005 that are the ultimate background to this episode, some of which are on-wiki in long-forgotten archives and others of which are off-wiki and in some cases non-public or deleted; third, extensive prior discussion will only increase the stress and unhappiness that the entire episode has already caused (to the point that one of the editors is speaking above in terms of restraining orders); and fourth, this matter affecting only these two editors should not become a further burden on the community's time. That being said, if other arbitrators support Carcharoth's approach then my directive that the two editors stop posting can be considered overridden. Or we can simply pass a motion reinstating the prior restriction on Everyking for a further term; Everyking says he has no intention of referring to Snowspinner on-wiki, and if means it the restriction would have little effect (other than the symbolic one about which he has complained for so long, but I fear he has lost any high ground he might ever possibly have had in that regard). But I still think the best answer here may be for Everyking to realize that he has done damage, to sincerely apologize, and then to shut up. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of Everyking's most recent comment above, I agree that this request can be closed without formal action. I hope very strongly that we will never have a need to revisit this issue. Whether Everyking avoids any further scrutiny of his behavior by this committee is now entirely up to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to take a slightly different tack here. ArbCom doesn't need to get involved. I think that community sanctions will work here. In other words, the ArbCom restrictions have expired, so there is no need for ArbCom to be involved here, or at least some attempt by the community to resolve this should be attempted first. I suggest Scott MacDonald present his case to the community and see if there is support for community sanctions. Such sanctions could in theory be appealed to ArbCom, but we tend not to get involved if we judge that the community has successfully resolved the situation. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scott, I think the amendment you are requesting here could be simply and easily put in place as an independent sanction enacted by the community. If you don't want to propose that, I am happy to propose that ArbCom restore the previous restrictions, but that will probably take longer, and discussion among ArbCom may result in harsher sanctions being put in place than the community might impose. My view is that the events of over 5 years ago don't need to be explained. The conduct here and now is sufficient to make a case that something needs to be done. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Everyking, thank-you for making the pledge that you make here. Given that the latest round of this matter was started by comments from you, I see no need for Phil Sandifer to make a similar pledge, but from his edit here I presume he will forbear from commenting on you just as you will forbear from commenting on him. I have asked my colleagues to look at this, as I think that given your pledge, no formal action is needed here and we can redact what needs redacting and ask for this request to be archived. Carcharoth (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What Newyorkbrad said, especially the last sentence. Although my preference would be a sincere undertaking from Everyking that he will refrain from discussing Snowspinner/Phil Sandifer (I would suggest that he refrain from doing so in any public forum), I would have no difficulty in reinstating the prior restrictions. I also concur that there is no benefit in involving the community as a whole in this discussion. Risker (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Risker. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth and Risker. As far as I'm concerned, we can probably wind this one down now.  Roger Davies  talk 03:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)