Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Workshop

Policy interpretation
Can the ArbCom explain how my "interpretation" of policy differs from theirs? Because frankly I'm not sure how it does.

"No, totally wrong. He complains about virtually every administrator action listed on the Administrator's noticeboard, and in virtually every case it is obvious from his comments that has no clue what he is talking about. Civil or not, that has to stop." Well, if I can compile statistics demonstrating that I comment on only a small percentage, and that much of the time what I say is not negative or in any way complaining, and that furthermore when it is complaining there is clear evidence that I have understood what I am talking about, can I get this thrown out? Everyking 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably not, as the problem is the bad examples, not the good examples 13:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But Raul is arguing here "virtually every..." I am certain I can disprove that in terms of simple percentages. So that ought to count for something. Everyking 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with Everyking that he doesn't complain about 'virtually every' action on WP:AN and AN/I. Arbitrators and participants here should refrain from hyperbole; exaggerations will tend to increase an already high level of animosity and tension, and will likely reduce the community's respect for any resulting decision and for the arbitration process in general.

I also don't think that Everyking is prone to misrepresent Wikipedia policy, though I may be mistaken (diffs are always useful.) Typically he questions its application in situations where administrators have been granted discretion&mdash;whether or not an admin's application of the 'disruption' provision of the blocking policy is overly broad, for instance.

That said, I also understand and agree with the sentiment of some of the participants that there is often something unhealthy about the way that Everyking chooses to present his concerns on WP:AN(/I). In some cases, Everyking's comments fall short of the standard of civility demanded by policy and expected of such a prolific and long-term editor and administrator. On a few occasions, the remarks brush against our personal attack policy; such remarks are usually in relation to one or two editor with whom Everyking seems to share a personal animosity.

In the remaining cases–which I suspect make up the largest portion–Everyking's remarks are not incivil (though they may be somewhat terse) but seem to take a highly charitable view of Wikipedia's more...um, challenging...contributors and a very jaundiced view of Wikipedia's other administrators. The recent discussions regarding the banned editor Skyring illustrate the essence of this conflict. While Everyking correctly notes that Skyring (the individual) has been making good–albeit very minor–edits recently, Everyking fails to note that Skyring was banned for stalking several other editors, launching personal attacks, and had been making those recent edits using scores of sockpuppet accounts (in the article I could nine separate Skyring socks in one twenty-four hour period) to evade his ban and continue to contact Jtdirl.
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Several possible interpretations arise; I may fail to identify all of them, and I certainly can't presume to read Everyking's mind.
 * 1) Everyking may be deliberately playing devil's advocate. While this can be a productive exercise if identified as such and applied sparingly, overreliance on this technique can be wearing.
 * 2) Everyking may be charitably acting as an advocate for blocked or banned users who have much more restricted ways of communicating with the Wikipedia community. This is certainly a worthwhile and reasonable thing to do, but it is possible to communicate–and act–on behalf of blocked users without attacking other admins.  (I have personally undone one block by each of Jtdirl and Snowspinner, for example, accompanied by constructive and reasoned discussion.)
 * 3) Everyking may be misapplying (or unevenly applying) WP:AGF; assuming the best of proven trolls and stalkers and curiously failing to grant the same level of trust to members in good standing of the Wikipedia community.
 * 4) Everyking may not be looking into the cases of administrator intervention that he is criticizing.
 * 5) Everyking may be enacting personal vendettas or crusades. There are some administrators that Everyking does not like.  (He is as entitled as anyone else to hold personal opinions of other people.)  He may be hoping to drive them off by criticizing their actions as thoroughly as possible.
 * 6) Everyking may be trolling. Due to dislike of our admins, resentment over his previous ArbCom cases, or because it's a full moon, he could be venting his frustrations by posting vexatious remarks and criticisms.  If this is the case, I doubt it is a conscious act.

Depending on which processes the ArbCom believes are at work, different remedies may be called for. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The stakes are not even, that's what you're missing with #3: the blocked user faces inability to contribute to a free encyclopedia; the admin faces nothing more than a potential blow to his or her pride. So you can't put the admin and the blocked/marginalized user on the same playing field of "trust" or "good faith". I am much more willing to side with a blocked/marginalized user than an admin if I suspect any kind of wrongful treatment of the former, since the stakes are so much higher for the former. If all things are equal, I trust most admins more than most of the people I would defend on AN/I, because they have a proven record of some sort and have passed a community vote (there are exceptions, a number of admins you could count on one hand who I wouldn't trust with a nickel, but I've only gotten this low impression of them after seeing them defiantly in the wrong time and time and time and time again). Everyking 04:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * To an extent I covered that in #2; acting as an advocate or intermediary on behalf of people who are barred from editing and may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and procedure can be a helpful and worthwhile task. Please note that in #3 I didn't say a word about 'trust', only assuming good faith&mdash;the two are different.  To take a hypothetical case, let's say that I (TenOfAllTrades) have a history of indefinitely blocking vandalism-only accounts, but in my zealous pursuit of vandals I occasionally block editors with some positive contributions for vandalism, too.
 * Under such circumstances, you might not trust me (more precisely, trust my actions as an administrator). You might still assume that my actions were made in good faith, however, and approach matters that way in a hypothetical post on WP:AN/I.


 * Assuming good faith. I saw that TenOfAllTrades blocked JohnQPublic indefinitely for vandalism.  It looks like JohnQ may have been involved in some rash edits [diff] [diff] following a dispute with SomeOtherGuy at SomeRandomArticle, but JohnQ is generally a good contributor.  I (left a note asking Ten to review the block/shortened the block/lifted the block and left a note for Ten/would like a second opinion from the other admins here).  Following this up with a polite note expressing concern about Ten's use of blocking on his user talk page and explaining your actions is also a good thing.


 * Not assuming good faith. TenOfAllTrades is abusing his blocking powers again.  This time he's blocked JohnQPublic, and I've had to fix Ten's mess.  Ten is a menace to the project and urgently needs to be desysopped.


 * It is possible to disagree with other admins and their actions without making the assumption that they are motivated by insanity, callousness, or reckless cruelty. In general, admins take action because they believe that they are doing the correct thing for the benefit of this project; sometimes their approach is misguided, overzealous, sloppy, or just plain wrong, but very seldom is it in bad faith. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have to second what TenOfAllTrades said above. Assuming good faith does not mean that you have to believe that somebody is acting in good faith. It's rather a convention, a rhetorical device if you wish, which serves both to stop misunderstandings from becoming arguments and to strengthen your case in issues like this. Even when faced with a POV pusher, an abusive admin, or a troll, it's best and most productive to treat them like a misguided but benevolent colleague.

On a more general note: It's all about appearances. The vast majority of editors don't know each other in real life, and then the vast majority of those have never noticed each other's name on Wikipedia. Other people are inevitably going to judge you and your relationships with other editors based on at most a dozen comments. All editors, especially those trusted with additional powers, like admins and arbitrators, should take care to resist the urge for knee-jerk criticism of editors they don't trust or disagree with, as well as the urge for knee-jerk defense of their buddies.

We should make sure that article talk pages and project pages are used for efficiently dealing with editorial and community issues, rather than for kindergarten fights and inner crowd jokes. The tensions that are evident or at least apparent from cynical remarks, vehemence, lynchmob mentality and the general lack of assuming good faith, especially of newbies, produce an atmosphere of distrust which is very good at perpetuating itself. The only way to stop that is to take care to exercise restraint and employ the appropriate tension-reducing rhetorical devices when communicating with other people, or, to put it shortly, be polite. Zocky 12:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"Everyking is to refrain from demanding the removal of administrators, and criticising their behavior in a manner that calls their good faith into question."

Evidence please. I rarely call for desysopping anyone, and as far as I can recall the only person I've called for being desysopped is Snowspinner. And I'm hardly the only one who's done that.

The second part seems too subjective. That makes it ripe for abuse. Everyking 05:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Note also, if the ArbCom deems it relevant, that I believe in more rather than fewer administrators, with slightly less exacting standards, but also slightly reduced powers (less room for subjectivity, requiring controversial actions to get the broad approval of other admins). I would vote to reinstall/reelect virtually all present admins. Everyking 05:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)