Ashley Pomeroy (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
This is Raul's claim, which contradicts my own claim that I am pretty good about this already and certainly do not need the ArbCom to mandate how thoroughly I research things. Surely he will be able to present some evidence proving that I entered into some discussion without the requisite knowledge? Actually, no, he'll need to present evidence that I've done this incessantly, and been wildly off the mark, to justify a ruling. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
This is Raul's claim, which contradicts my own claim that I am pretty good about this already and certainly do not need the ArbCom to mandate how thoroughly I research things. Surely he will be able to present some evidence proving that I entered into some discussion without the requisite knowledge? Actually, no, he'll need to present evidence that I've done this incessantly, and been wildly off the mark, to justify a ruling. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
||
:Well, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive46#Sophie.2FUser:XAL here's one]. You raise a legitimate complaint, but self-destroy it by admitting ignorance of the case in question. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive13#JarlaxleArtemis Here's another one] in which you comment on the banning of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JarlaxleArtemis_2 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''". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive13#A_gentle_note_to_-Ril- 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive11#Enviroknot_back_through_TOR_proxies 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive7#Arbitration_case_-_Zivinbudas Here], regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zivinbudas 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive12#Final_decision This discussion] seems to have provoked the re-opening of this third arbitration case, which was suspended for the first time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive10#Everyking_3_arbcom_case_closed 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. -[[User:Ashley Pomeroy|Ashley Pomeroy]] 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:59, 1 November 2005
It was decided that I would have time to prepare a case before any movement started on the case...why is voting now going on? Everyking 21:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Are you preparing a case? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I said before I needed time. I need someone to advocate for me, and I've barely even started talking to people about that. Some very tentative discussions with one person. I also need time to gather evidence: there is tons of it in the history of AN/I which would disprove the case against me, but it's going to be hard, time consuming work digging it up. I would like for the case to be frozen until December, although I'm open to talking with the Arbitrators here in the meantime (what I see proposed gives me several questions already that I need to ask). Everyking 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but I don't understand why it takes time to find an advocate. Why have you barely started talking to people about that?
- Feel free to ask questions here.
- Remember the case isn't over until the fat lady sings. Any initial voting can easily be changed in the light of any new evidence so don't fret over voting. We won't close the case until you have had a chance to put up a defence, but you do need to get on with it. Asking for the case to be frozen until December looks like stalling to me. How much of the "hard time consuming work" have you actually done so far? Any? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- None. That's why I need time. If the ArbCom is going to go ahead with voting I'm not even going to bother, though. All movement on the case should wait until my defense is ready. Everyking 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Look at it from our point of view for a minute. So far you have made zero progress towards presenting a defence. So you've basically just wasted the past couple of weeks then? At this rate of progress you never be able to present a defence. You have to make a start. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'll make a point of it during November, then. There's a lot to work through. The odds against me are massive because of the personal animosities at work here and I need to be cut a lot of slack in the arbitration process in order for me to have anything approaching a fair chance. Who ever gets through arbitration with an acquittal? And that's people who don't have the ill-will of individual arbitrators to contend with. Everyking 01:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- November? There are still 5 days left in October! Make a start today. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There are now three votes! This is being pushed through in a hurry so as not to let me have any hope. Please, again, I ask you to freeze movement on the case. Everyking 05:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
"Administrators are not to misrepresent their own policy desires and beliefs as actual policies"
- Cite one example of me doing that. I deny in the strongest possible terms that I have ever done that.
"Everyking's commentary often reveals he is totally ignorant of the situations he is commenting on"
- Inflated nonsense. I do not always investigate deeply into situations before commenting, but I am no different from virtually everyone else in that regard. What I do is comment based on what has been presented. That is simply me offering my thoughts, not an extensive investigation.
Moreover, is the ArbCom going to deal with the lifting of my Ashlee article restrictions in this case, or do I need to open another? Everyking 05:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
As I said before, we will not freeze movement on a case. However we will not close the case until you have had time to present your defence.You must use this time to actually add evidence to the evidence page, or comment on the remedies in the workshop etc. You cannot simply do nothing and hope the problem will go away.
- OK we'll cite the evidence
- Oh but you are different from virtually everyone else in that respect. Most people do investigate before commenting, especially when that comment is a criticism of the action taken.
- As far as I am concerned it's a seperate issue. You'd need to request we reopen that case. But let's get this case out of the way first though. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I disagree with Theresa in this regard. As far as I am concerned, the mentorship was for a predetermined amount of time (6 months?). So at that point, all you have to do is request clarification about whether or not it should continue. Unless I hear bad things (which I don't think I will), I am OK dropping the mentorship and allowing you to edit those articles freely. →Raul654 15:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- No way. This is a complicated issue and will take months to deal with adequately. The repeal of the mentorships, on the other hand, is very simple and could be done in a day. Ideally I'd like it to be a separate case which can be opened now; failing that a part of this case, but worst of all would be as a separate case after this one. Everyking 08:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that if I am not allowed to discuss or even mention policy I will be an admin in name only. I won't be able to warn anybody who is violating a policy; I won't even be able to mention policy in the context of a standard article dispute, outside my capacity as an admin, apparently. Doesn't the ArbCom agree this is a little crazy? That would really set a precedent, the first case in which a person is prohibited from even speaking of policy. Everyking 09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's what troubles me about it. How can he be a kind of half-administrator? I did not communicate to the rest of the committee that you had asked for time. I relied on our usual press of business to ensure that there would be a delay; and there was, although perhaps not as long as you might have wished. Everyone says you are a good administrator and you ought to remain an administrator, but somehow your chatter on Wikipedia forums is upsetting a lot of people. Fred Bauder 12:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing here which explains what an interpretation is. At first I assumed everything is an interpretation, so I would be prohibited from mentioning policy at all. But I don't know if that's what the arbitrators mean. I think they may be saying I can't state a view about policy that contradicts their own. If so, can they give any examples of how our views differ on policy? Because if not, this is absurd. Everyking 13:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
suggested RfC restriction
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)
- 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)
The ban from the noticeboard
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 Ashley 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)
- 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)
Findings of fact
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)
- 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)
Probation
You know what's funny? My admin actions are never controversial. I stay away from controversial admin actions like the plague. Yet now there's a move to put me on "administrative probation", as if I've done something wrong. Moreover, the people who I am in trouble for criticizing, namely Snowspinner, engage in controversial admin actions all the time. Hello? This is not sane. I am not trying to sound arrogant in saying this, but the honest truth is that I am the only one here who is saying anything that has any connection to the actual facts. The failure of the arbitrators to provide a shred of evidence for their claims only serves to confirm this.
Yet the arbitrators ignore me. I'm the defendant and my questions go unanswered. I ask the ArbCom to answer these questions:
- How do my views on policy differ from those of the arbitrators? In what ways have I "misinterpreted" policy?
- How does an "interpretation" differ from a plain statement, if at all? Can one make a statement about policy without it being an interpretation of policy?
- Can the ArbCom provide evidence for anything that it is claiming? Where are the cites?
- Who does the ArbCom believe is responsible for this case being before them? Me, although I strictly held to my agreement for two months and tried to ignore Snowspinner, or Snowspinner, who shattered the agreement by refusing to abide by the same voluntary restriction I had accepted—to not criticize the other except on the other's own talk page? Does the ArbCom feel it is fair to punish me for mildly critical, non-profane, honest questioning of controversial actions, which in any case mostly took place in a period ending three months ago, simply because Snowspinner will not refrain from criticizing me as I have refrained from criticizing him?
Everyking 05:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"Everyking is required to familiarize himself with the particulars of a situation before commenting on it."
This is Raul's claim, which contradicts my own claim that I am pretty good about this already and certainly do not need the ArbCom to mandate how thoroughly I research things. Surely he will be able to present some evidence proving that I entered into some discussion without the requisite knowledge? Actually, no, he'll need to present evidence that I've done this incessantly, and been wildly off the mark, to justify a ruling. Everyking 07:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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)