Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

message: 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—the words—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)

message: *Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/5/0/0)

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Newyorkbrad 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that only the restrictions imposed in Everyking 3 are still in effect. Thatcher131 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As it currently stands, appeal fails 1-7. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 20:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: *Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/7/1/0)

message: :Archived from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Picaroon (t) 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nah. November 11th it is. The intent was clearly a one year extension. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: November 11 it is, then. Kirill 03:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remedy expiration 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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♥♥♥ 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Putting your request here, with Newyorkbrad and me replying here, is the first step in making the review public. ;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 12:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am all in favor of full openness. Everyking (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: All right, I'll let it go, then. Everyking (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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.  — CharlotteWebb 16:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests is reliable, then yes, you are. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] and discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Calton|Calton]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 

message: 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 DissidentTalk 01:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]] 

message: 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 | email) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 | email) 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update 2 - minor correction as per EK's comment above. FT2 (Talk | email) 07:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: Initiated by  Avruch  T   at 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 | email) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking_3]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Avruch|Avruch]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional, responding to Arbitrators comments so far

message: 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)
thread_title: Follow up

message: 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:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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.
Possible resolutions:  There are several ways in which this contradiction can be resolved.  They include:
* 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Uninvolved User [[User:Jay*Jay|Jay*Jay]] 

message: 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:
# Remedy 5 of EK
# 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)
thread_title: Statement by WJBscribe

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:David.Mestel|David Mestel]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment from [[User:AGK|AGK]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comment from [[User:Zocky|Zocky]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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∇∆∇∆ 00:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes that bothers me too. Paul August ☎ 05:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 | email) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' views and discussion 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Avruch|Avruch]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 

message: *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∇∆∇∆ 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Jehochman

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Scott MacDonald

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Ultraexactzz

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by Phil Sandifer

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by A Nobody

message: *Phil Sandifer notified.--Tznkai (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:A Nobody|A Nobody]] ([[User talk:A Nobody|talk]])

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Tony Sidaway]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Avruch]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by User:Phil Sandifer

message: 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)
thread_title: Outside comment by Cla68

message: I am not familiar with all the history here, but I can say a few things that others have not yet said.
*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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, Newyorkbrad suggested a motion to remove the remedies in the case, but added:
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)
thread_title: Outside comment by Crystal whacker

message: *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 | Blast him / Follow his steps 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clerk notes

message: * Could we please have links to the various times this has been before the committee. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: **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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Phil Sandifer

message: 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. rootology (C)(T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Rootology|Rootology]] 

message: ==== Clerk notes ====
*Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Username|other user]] 

message: *Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract added a bit of clarity to what would be viewed as editing interaction: editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that [party 1] has recently edited but [party 2] has not previously edited.  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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Statement by Everyking

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Dominic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Cool Hand Luke 

message: # 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.
# 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?
# 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? 
# 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.
# 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Thatcher 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: *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)
thread_title: Arbitrator views and discussion of motions

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct; the remaining restriction has now expired. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: End of case?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Scott MacDonald

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Cla68 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Lar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Stephan Schulz 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Statement by Count Iblis