Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3/Proposed decision

message: Related to the point about Snowspinner not being allowed to enforce any decision reached in this case, to remove another source of acriomy and potential acrimony I suggest that another remedy is added:
Everyking is prohibited from contributing to or commenting about any RfC about Snowspinner. Snowspinner is prohibited from contributing to or commenting about any RfC about Everyking. Thryduulf 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me. As long as it's equal treatment; that's all I've ever asked for. Everyking 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: suggested RfC restriction

message: Just wondering if the ArbCom will consider allowing for an opening to apply for the ban to be lifted after a shorter period of time (say two months), as was done (as far as I can see) successfully in the Ashlee Simpson case. To me a whole year sounds like a pretty severe punishment, and I have seen Everyking come with many sensible contributions to the noticeboard as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the year because there was no specific limit. I see no reason why Everyking shouldn't apply for the ban to be lifted early if his behaviour has improved in the meantime. Theresa Knott  (a tenth stroke) 14:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to support a shorter ban or to be receptive to appeal, myself; his behavior has been less problematic of late. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ban from the noticeboard 

message: For the findings of fact, could I (strongly but politely) encourage the arbitrators to include diffs to support their findings?  I'm particularly concerned about 2) Everyking has consistently and repeatedly offered his own misguided interpretations of policy and Wikipedia custom, on the Administator's noticeboard in particular.  Diffs or examples would be helpful both to bolster community trust in the findings and to help clarify the precise meaning of 'misguided interpretations of policy'. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be fascinated to see the arbitrators just come up with evidence that I disagree with them on policy (as opposed to attitude and approach), let alone evidence that my views are misguided. Everyking 03:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findings of fact 

message: :Well, here's one. You raise a legitimate complaint, but self-destroy it by admitting ignorance of the case in question. Here's another one in which you comment on the banning of a troublesome user with the words "I don't know a whole lot about the user, but I have seen his edits in passing and never thought they were anything but good". Here's one where you enter a discussion in order to tell the world that you don't know what the discussion is about. How about this, where - after commenting on the blocking of a trolling sockpuppeteer - you admit that "Since I know practically nothing about this person's editing, I can't say", an admission which would have been best put at the beginning of the discussion. Here, regarding this arbitration decision, you make a couple of dissenting comments before admitting that you hadn't even looked at the evidence page, despite having all the time in the world to do so. What was going through your mind? The impression I get is of someone who enjoys needling people and who is unable to take responsibility for his own actions; a typical teenager. This discussion seems to have provoked the re-opening of this third arbitration case, which was suspended for the first time back in August. My personal solution for all editors who think themselves indispensable would be to block them for a week, and see if Wikipedia collapses; if it does not, block them for another week, and see if Wikipedia collapses; and so on until Wikipedia collapses. We could have a betting game, based on how long Wikipedia is expected to survive without that user. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who thinks him or herself indispensible? Everyking 17:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that Ashley is speaking generally—some of our editors are touched by hubris on occasion.  I prefer to think that he isn't alluding to this old chestnut; that was nearly a year ago. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems obvious to me that Wikipedia is not going to collapse without any single editor, but the removal of any good editor will make the project a little worse off. Everyking 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excellent summary of evidence

message: In general, Everyking does great work on Wikipedia.  His work in article space is superlative–utterly above reproach–and I doubt anyone would argue with that.
The problem arises where he critiques the actions of other administrators.  There is nothing whatsoever wrong about commenting on the actions of other admins; we all should be watched, because we do have some pretty potent tools at our disposal (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? and so forth).  The trouble comes from the manner in which he brings his criticism.  There are two problems, one or the other–or both–come into play in the incidents of concern.
#Failure to investigate situations before commenting.  This is addressed thoroughly in Ashley Pomeroy's comments above.  Taking an accusatory tone or demanding to know why WP:AN/I wasn't first consulted when an admin blocks a prolific troll, vandal, or sock isn't productive.
#Lack of civility in his criticism.  This has been discussed at length.  Primarily these incivil remarks are directed at specific admins with whom Everyking has a history of conflict.  Right or wrong, the form of the criticism is more appropriate for starting a brawl than resolving a dispute.
Subjectively, WP:AN was a much less unpleasant and acrimonious–but still quite productive–place during Everyking's recent ceasefire and absence.  
I don't claim to be able to read minds, but I get the impression that the ArbCom would like to impose a remedy along the lines of
#Everyking will be polite and courteous on the AN, and will read up on cases before commenting.  He will attempt to resolve questions through private talk page discussion before raising a stink on AN; he will always assume that other admins–though fallible humans–are acting in good faith.
#Other editors will refrain from baiting or taunting Everyking.  You know who you are.  It's unseemly and unwelcome; it has no place here.
#In general, Everyking and other editors will refrain from being WP:DICKs.  If you're not sure if you're in line with that policy, then you're probably breaking it.  If other editors tell you you're breaking it, then you're definitely over the line.
#Violation of the above terms will result in
##Temporary banning from AN and its subpages.
##Extended banning from AN and its subpages.
##Short blocks.
##Extended blocks.
Unfortunately, such a remedy is difficult to craft.  WP:DICK isn't formal policy.  The parties to the Arbitration would tend to argue about all of the first three points, and whether or not they had violated them.  (There was significant criticism by Everyking of his first two ArbCom cases because he felt that terms were insufficiently precise or too broadly interpreted.)
Left with that the ArbCom is taking the simplest, shortest route and seems to intend to ban Everyking from AN and its subpages.  It's clear, it's unambiguous, it's enforceable, and it doesn't bar Everyking from doing the stuff that he does extremely well.  If Everyking can suggest an alternative way to address these concerns, then I hope that the ArbCom would be more than willing to listen. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can agree with criticism that I am often not very civil. This is something I should improve about. Often I do have a sarcastic or accusatory tone. That comes from seeing things I consider wrong being done time and time again, but nevertheless it isn't good behavior. Everyking 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I don't like you saying that I've had a "ceasefire". No such thing. It is not like I'm holding back fire waiting for resumption of hostilities. I am simply trying to avoid commenting there in general, and when I do to be more moderate in tone, as a personal decision (not a tactical one). Everyking 10:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TenOfAllTrades' comment on narrative

message: I have been responding
I decided to look at the Everyking's edits and edit histories for this case, and found the following:
*51 edits to this page, the first starting on 26 October, 14 days after its reopening, asking for more time.
*None to Proposed decision
*None to Evidence
*None to Talk:Evidence (which is empty)
*None to the Main Page
*5 to the Main Page - Talk
Among the last one, there is this, from 15 October:
: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 [emphasis mine]. Everyking 03:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the case is officially closed now. →Raul654 03:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. That's something pretty obvious, isn't it? --Calton | Talk 03:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just making sure you saw it. You posted so quickly after I closed it that I thought you might have missed it. →Raul654 03:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding

message: #Arbitrators are expected to have some modicum of understanding of a situation before punishing the people involved in it.
What do you say? I mean, so far I've had three cases against me founded in total ignorance on the part of the arbitrators. I say this calls for censure. Everyking 04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed principle