This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, please place proposed items you have confidence in on the proposed decision sub-page.

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Everyking (talk · contribs) has been the subject of two prior arbitrations Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Those cases involved editing of Ashlee Simpson and related articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) Everyking (talk · contribs) has consistently and repeatedly offered his own misguided interpretations of policy and Wikipedia custom, on the Administator's noticeboard in particular.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Oh good, some duct tape for the gag. No you just need some evidence that these were, in fact, misguided. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) Everyking (talk · contribs) regularly offers interpretations of policy and Wikipedia custom, frequently on the Administator's noticeboard and its subpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3a) Everyking's interpretations and commentary on policy application by other administrators is sometimes incivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This is worthwhile, I think. 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3b) The responses of other admins and editors to Everyking's criticisms are also sometimes incivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. ... and this. James F. (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

4) Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

5) Several editors, including Snowspinner (talk · contribs), Calton (talk · contribs), and Radiant! (talk · contribs) have made unproductive and inflammatory commentary on Everyking's behavior. [1] [2]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. To be fair, this isn't entirely one-sided: this sort of behavior exacerbates the problem and is no better than the behavior it comments upon. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Absolutely. James F. (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

6) Constantly calling good faith into question is usually unnecessary in dealing with the actions of established, well known editors, and has generally destructive effects on the community. In making such an accusation, the onus is on an editor to demonstrate a good knowledge of the facts and show that he has exhausted all other possibilities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Trying to focus on precisely what is is about Everyking's criticism that is wrong. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1) Everyking is prohibited from offering his interpretation of Wikipedia custom or policy

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I concur with Charles and Ten; I believe this is too broad. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. There's no finding that his interpretations have been consistently wrong or misguided, but never mind. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Good point. I've added an FOF to that effect. →Raul654 16:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Usually the problem is not the interpretation in and of itself, but rather the manner and style. If Everyking's criticism were to remain civil, I don't think we'd have a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) Everyking is prohibited from posting to the administrator's noticeboard

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) Everyking is prohibited from making comments on actions taken by other administrators

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I believe this also is too broad. It is not that he questions administrative actions that is problematic; it is that his comments are frequently uncivil or inflammatory and directed as much at the person as the action. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   As a further thought, it may be useful to require Everyking to have made a good-faith effort to have cleared up any misunderstanding on the talk page of the involved administrator before posting his grievances to a public forum. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   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. →Raul654 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Frequently this is the case. Not always. Hence the thought that a requirement to keep it onto talk pages might be helpful. I'm most uneasy with this broad a restriction, though. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Somehow I don't think giving him a blank check to game the system is going to be an improvement. →Raul654 21:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not absolutely over-the-moon with this, either. James F. (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Because heaven forfend that any administrator should feel obliged to defend his or her actions. Dissent must not be tolerated. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. How do we enforce this? Kelly Martin (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. This goes with a new finding of fact. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   1. Enforcement? <sigh> Mentorship, most likely. Somebody needs to have the power to ban him from certain forums, in response to legitimate complaints from other editors. There are plenty of admins with the maturity and disinterest necessary to enforce civility and good faith. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) The remedies in this decision are not to be enforced by Snowspinner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. In reply to Ten, yes, absolutely right, it's no bad thing. Charles: I agree that it is unfortunate that (I feel that) we need to do this; please remember that this case is still somewhat embryonic, so not all parts may seem to flow and gel just yet. James F. (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. That this remedy is even thought necessary says volumes. It's a truism that sysops aren't supposed to use their sysop powers for any dispute in which they're involved. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   It depends a lot on what the provisions for enforcement are, and exactly how broad the restrictions–if any–placed on Everyking are. If EK is in a dispute with some third party X and crosses the line of a general restriction imposed by this decision, is Snowspinner 'involved' or not? I don't think explicitly drawing a line is such a bad thing. At worst, this provision is redundant; at best, it saves us a lot of conflict later. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Everyking's actions on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I) amount to one thing and one thing only - attacking admins he doesn't personally like. The only thing that can be said for his conduct is that it has improved to the point where he at least seems to read into disputes before commenting. Regardless, his comments show a disregard for consensus, policy, and civility in favor of his own views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Adding to this are a tendency towards personal attacks as in [3], [4], [5], and [6].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. While the cited edits may not meet the threshold of personal attacks, they are sharply critical, some facetious. They seem to be directed at Snowspinner and David Gerard who Everyking terms "hardliners". These edits: [7], and [8] are particularly inappropriate as they are addressed to a puzzled third party. This edit [9], insisting on discussion when the Arbitration Committee ruling leaves the block up to the discretion of a single administrator, challenges enforcement of the ruling. Fred Bauder 17:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Immediately prior to bringing this RFAr, I asked him to cool it, reminding him of our past discussions. [10]. He flatly refused. [11].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Everyking seems to think Snowspinner is too aggressive about blocking people. Fred Bauder 17:17, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The following users have, in the past two weeks, asked EK to look into what he's talking about more, provide evidence, use a form of dispute resolution, or otherwise lay off:

Bishonen [12], Radiant [13] [14], Ta bu shi da yu [15], TenofAllTrades [16], Jwrosenzweig [17], Carnildo [18], Jayjg [19], JRM [20], Mel Etitis [21], me (Snowspinner) [22], Calton [23], UninvitedCompany [24], David Gerard [25], Raul654 [26], and Kbdank71 [27].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Radiant's query is in response to this facetious remark [28] by Everyking. TenOfAllTrades makes a good point here [29], "This perpetual sniping is utterly poisonous, and I imagine that it disgusts most of the other editors here."
2. Indeed. Certainly, it disgusts me. James F. (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

More or less without exception, Everyking's responses to these complaints, questions, or comments is to ignore them, or to make further accusations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I also find it telling that Everyking's immediate response to this case, rather than being to defend or explain his actions, has been to make accusations against the first arbitrator to accept it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I would also like to note, I certainly hope this doesn't end in Everyking's banning. I wasn't going to ask for it, at least. I intended to ask for a personal attack parole and a ban from the administrator's noticeboard pages except to use them to notify people of his own actions. Snowspinner 14:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: