Request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution. Before requesting arbitration, please review other avenues you should take. If you do not follow any of these routes, it is highly likely that your request will be rejected. If all other steps have failed, and you see no reasonable chance that the matter can be resolved in another manner, you may request that it be decided by the Arbitration Committee.
The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and (exceptionally) to summarily review new evidence and update the findings and decisions of a previous case. Review is likely to be appropriate if later events indicate the original ruling on scope or enforcement was too limited and does not adequately address the situation, or if new evidence suggests the findings of fact were significantly in error.
The procedure for accepting requests is described in the Arbitration policy. If you are going to make a request here, you must be brief and cite supporting diffs. New requests to the top, please. You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person against whom you lodge a complaint.
0/0/0/0 corresponds to Arbitrators' votes to accept/reject/recuse/other.
This is not a page for discussion, and Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Please do not open cases; only an Arbitrator or clerk may do so.
clique let delete rfc against dbachman and clique [20]
clique deletes remarks in admin noticeboard about user:dbachmann's vandalization and clique's practices
impact of such cliques to wikipedia
articles are incorrect and contain dogmatic views of small (hate) cliques
quality of articles gets worse, important facts remain unmentioned or get permanently vandalized as here
donators and potentional donators hear the above practices, and stop donations
Statement by Dbachmann
This is Antifinnugor (talk·contribs) back from his year's ban. Since he does not seem to have changed his ways during his year away, I would actually welcome a revision of the case by the arbcom, suggesting that now would be a good time to pronounce a permanent ban. dab(ᛏ)16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by LukasPietsch
I haven't been involved in all this except for one (admittedly strongly worded) comment on the article RfC linked to by Bgully above ([21]). While I don't consider myself a party to this "dispute", the Arbcom might want to consider the absurdity of calling this a "rassistic hate comment" as in itself constituting a breach of WP:NPA. This together with the even more blatant and absurd insult with which my comment was answered ([22], see also [23], [24], [25]). Arbcom should note that Bgully is obviously identical with User:Adam88, the account which he used during the actual "dispute" in March (not to be confused with User:Adam78!), and I'd suggest as a temporary injunction that Bgully should be required to clarify this identity, as well as that with Antifinnugor. Note also that Bgully had earlier contributed to Wikipedia during Antifinnugor's one-year ban, with contributions like this: [26]. --Lukas(T.|@)18:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tony Sidaway, clerk
Antifinnugor was not banned from Wikipedia, but banned for one year from editing the articles Finno-Ugric languages and Uralic languages "and related articles" for one year, The case was closed by User:Grunt on 1 February 2005, and the initial term of any ban would have expired on 1 February, 2006.
Bgully has not edited either article but has edited Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups. Most of his edits on Wikipedia seem to have been personal attacks on the editors he names in this application. He also contributed allegations, 10 March, 2006, resembling those above, to a now-deleted RfC
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)
Reject as very premature. Though if there is evidence that Bgully is Antifinnugor, I'd like to see it so I can consider an extension of the ban. Dmcdevit·t20:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rms125a@hotmail.com, and his various sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses, has persistently and blatantly breached several Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPA, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:SOCK.
Confirmation that other parties have been informed
Problematic behaviour includes inserting virulent anti-Irish/anti-Catholic/anti-Croatian POV into articles, vitriolic personal abuse, revert wars and a wide array of sockpuppets. A user conduct RfC was filed, but the user flatly denied all wrongdoing and the sockpuppetry and aggressive POV editing continued. Examples of each category of disputed behaviour (much more evidence and examples provided in the RfC):
(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/0/0)
EurowikiJ (talk • contribs), having had several discussions on Yugoslavia related articles, first signalled strange use of WikiMB account and will no doubt wish to be included in this RFAr.
The Minister of War (talk • contribs) (myself). Having seen EurowikiJs accusation, I decided to push for a CheckUser, which came out confirmed.
Kelly Martin (talk • contribs) (not really involved in all this) confirmed it was very likely that WikiMB was the same editor, or at least two editors working in close coordination. I was unsure about which consequences this should have for Bormalagurski (talk • contribs), and started asking for advice on WP:AN/I. However, the discussion quickly centered on the question whether he should be "believed", rather than the evidence.
Besides posting it on WP:AN/I, other steps towards resolution have not been tried. The question at hand is whether Bormalagurski (talk • contribs) can be said to have abused the WikiMB account (whether meat or sock), and whether (and how) this abuse should be sanctioned. To my mind, only a verdict here can resolve those questions.
Confirmation that other parties have been informed
Rather than explaining everything first, I would like to comment on EurowikiJ's "evidence". I am aware that the following text (which includes parts of EurowikiJ's statement) is longer than 500 words, but I feel it is neccessary for me to exactly explain all of the accusations, and I feel I've made it easier for everyone to understand my side of the story. The following is a EurowikiJ statement, and in between, my comments:
User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.
If you ask WikiMB if he wants to become an administrator, he will say no. He has told me that his only purpose is to write short articles and have a hobby. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:
Too bad EurowikiJ didn't quote the rest of my comment. I did say that I was happy when WikiMB joined Wikipedia, I felt I had someone who might support me in a duscussion. However, he has explicitly told me that he has no intentions in discussing controversial articles, and I have said this several times. I even asked him to help me out with some articles, and he only did very little, like in the article about Kosovo. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[03:20, 1 April 2006 WikiMB] - WikiMB edits the table. This is his first and only appearance on this page.
I have asked WikiMB to look at the article, simply because I think he could look at it from a more NPOV. He told me that he has no interest in articles such as that one, and only made a minor change, which I quickly noticed, since Kosovo is on my watchlist. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as it is shown above.
As I've said, I noticed what WikiMB edited very quickly, and divided the column to make it look better. Kosovo is on my watchlist, the 11 or 8 minutes (or whatever time interval it was) should've been shorter, I noticed the change ever earlier, but was trying to figure out how to divide the column. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, on April 2 something even stranger happened on WikiMB's user page.
[|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writting about all the places in Croatia. See you."
Yes, he did leave that message, WikiMB informed me of the message, and since I knew Luka better, he maybe thought that I would know why he did that. I deleted the message, and asked Luka why he left that message there, and he thought that WikiMB was a sockpuppet, solely for being in Vancouver, speaking Serbo-Croatian and having the letters MB, which someone might interpret as Malagurski Boris. He changed the message when I assured him that WikiMB is not a sockpuppet. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[|19:14, 2 April 2006 Bormalagurski] Three hours later Bormalagurski erases the comment. This is his FIRST edit at his school-friend's user page!!! And it is a deletion of a comment that someone else has left for User:WikiMB
[19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened. Bormalagurski disappears until this morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show. Apparently they both leave a message declaring their innocence at the same time. Then these two proficient editors start publicly wondering if this coincidence might further improve their chances of proving that they are not the same editor. I must admit it is hilarious.
OK, I admit that was a stupid idea, and I guess the stupidity is softened by EurowikiJ's comment below that I'm intelligent. My idea to click at the same moment was stupid, and I quickly realised that it proves nothing, so I commented on that on WikiMB's talk page. He wanted to talk more, so we went online, where he has said that he is very disappointed by Wikipedia. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my closing statement, I'd like to thank EurowikiJ for his concern on keeping Wikipedia a nice place to edit, and I understand why he is pushing this so far, since I've offered to cooperate with him long ago, long before WikiMB joined Wikipedia, and he just denied my peace offer, and made it his goal to rid Wikipedia of a harmless Bormalagurski and his friend (who has done nothing but hard, honest work on this Wikipedia). Therefore, this is not about sockpuppetry, this is absolutely not about WikiMB, this is about EurowikiJ hating my guts and trying to get rid of me for making a few Serbian nationalist remarks in the past, which I have apologized for. Is it not the goal of Wikipedia to forgive users like me, who were brainwashed by their governments, who came here to believe that an encyclopedia should reflect only the opinion of one person, and eventually learned a whole different way of looking at things? Yes, I did make a few mistakes, but I've since made peace with a lot of users, and even started working with Dr.Gonzo, a Croat, on an article about human rights in Croatia. Sockpuppets? I have enough trouble with my own account, not alone handling another one and writing articles about small Croatian villages. I ask everyone to look at this problem from a reasonable perspective, and look at the explinations I have given. Also, if you decide not to forgive my mistakes, block me, but don't block WikiMB, he doesn't deserve this. --Boris Malagurski₪00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aditional comment on the photos
One of the "main evidences" of this trial are the photos which WikiMB sent to Wikipedia. The photos are mine. Yes, I took them on my many travels throughout the world. I have sent them to Serbian Wikipedia (I am an administrator there) and have never shown much interest in sending them to English Wikipedia, since my main focus is the Serbian Wikipedia (where I have 10 times more edits than on this one). WikiMB has always liked those photos and asked me if I could let him send it to Wikipedia. I thought it might be a good excercise and made him a sub-page, send the first photo so he can se how its done, and he sent the rest. He is even planing on sending them to Commons. When Kelly heard the explination, a comment was posted where it says that thats not allowed, the photos were sent with false licences (WikiMB selected "self-made"), and I commented that I thought it was OK, if I, the creator of the photos, said it was OK. There was no reply. My point, once again, it that this is not about sockpuppetry, this is not about WikiMB, this is only about others who might not share my opinion, and who want to get rid of me by all means. --Boris Malagurski₪00:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have had no dispute with Bormalagurski, I am the one who has collected most of the evidence on the sockpuppetry. After having presented it at her talk page, Kelly Martin agreed that they are probably indeed the same. Whether or not she also performed an IP check, I do not know.
The evidence supporting this is a vast array of small coincidences and inconsistencies, and the behaviour of WikiMB suggesting he is not a newbie as he claims. Although it is hard to convey such an impression in 500 words or less, I will try.
First of all, it certainly is a great coincidence to see both users, both hailing from Vancouver, both speaking Serbo-Croatian (whereas most people call it either Serbian or Croatian). However, they did not seem to interact at all. The suspicions only began when, user:Luka Jačov (perhaps also involved) leaves a message on WikiMBs talk page (in Serbo-Croatian) asking: "Boris, why do you have two accounts ;)?[34]. This message is promptly removed by BorMalagurski[35] (why would he want to remove a friendly comment from somebody elses talk page?), only to be replaced later by the same message without the reference to a double account[36]. Although the coincidences are already piling up, WikiMB responds to these edits by defending Boris Malagurski, saying "It is true that Luka left a message on my page saying that my name is Boris and that I have two accounts and it is true that Boris Malagurski erased it. He has been accused several times of having sockpuppets (even of being a sockpuppet) and we have talked about it extensively in school, he got angry that someone would attack me of being a sockpuppet and he erased it" [37]. Apparently they also go to the same school?!
This prompts me to do some digging in both of their contributions, uncovering several interesting facts:
WikiMBs first three edits [38] were to his user page, creating a subpage of photo's he had made (wow, how many newbies know how to create a subpage this fast?). Also, no photos were yet uploaded.
Immediately afterwards, he starts uploading his photos (how many new users know how to do that?), which do not seem to contribute to any article save his user page.
During this time, User:Bormalagurski is dormant (by the way, note the initials). WikiMB amasses a ton of edits in a short time, and posts his last message on 03:28, and lo and behold, BorisMalagurski posts his first message at 03:33 and continues to edit from that point onwards.
The day after (30 March), Bormalagurski is editing away until 05:31. At 05:38, WikiMB pops up and starts editing fervently, racking up several edits per minute, until 06:31. Sure enough, Bormalagurski starts editing at 06:39 (enough time to reboot). This taking turns in editing is a frequently recurring theme.
Most interestingly, Bormalagurski is an admin (!) on the Serbian wiki (his profile), and a review of his contributions [39] shows that the pictures WikiMB uploaded have all been made by Bormalagurski (A full list of this overlap is listed here.
The reaction of Bormalagurski has been telling. Every time he has been accused of something, it is always unjustly, and there is always a good reason. They went to school together, he had taught him how to edit Wikipedia, he had given the pictures to WikiMB [40] (though WikiMBs photo page mentions he made them himself). At one point, he even tried to edit simultaneously with WikiMB on his talk page to prove his point [41]. This is doubly strange as WikiMB has been blocked since yesterday [42].
Still, if anything, this simultaneous edit underlines the fact that WikiMB will turn out to be, at best, a meatpuppet and at worst, a sock.
Additional note. I am not involved in any of the disputes over content. I just happened to come across the sockpuppet, and investigated it. That is the extent of my role. It may well be that the Administrative action is obvious, but after having asked in WP:AN/I and after reviewing WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK, I couldnt find anything. The only admin to react was User:JoshuaZ, who suggested an RFAr [43]. I came here, in good faith, believing that an RFAr was appropriate. The Minister of War(Peace)12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note 2. Given the fact that most people seem to think this question is more suited for an RFC, I see no need to push forward with this RFAr. I'd retract the request myself, but as other involved parties have already posted statements and defences, I will leave it to the ArbCom to delist. Thanks & greets, The Minister of War(Peace)08:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by party 2
My report is 522 words long.
As it has been already established that Bormalagurski and WikiMB are either the same user or - and this is in my opinion unlikely for the reasons I will submit below - two users working in concert, I will state why it is essential that User:WikiMB be blocked.
User:WikiMB has been created with the sole purpose of eventually obtaining adminship. Hence, ambitious goals, edit count link on user-page, spreading of good-will across Wikipedia, PR remarks on his and other user-pages. And a complete wall of silence between him and Bormalagurski. Otherwise, User:WikiMB's prospects of obtaining adminship are irrevocably gone.
User:Bormalagurski will later insist the second account belongs to his school-friend and that he ...also felt good having someone who might support me in a discussion. In fact that was the last thing Bormalagurski intended for WikiMB. Ever since his alleged school-friend appeared on Wikipedia and though WikiMB had contacted a number of other contributors, he NEVER, NOT ONCE, left a message on User:Bormalagurski's page. Conversely, User:Bormalagurski never left a message on his alleged school-friend's user page. In fact, prior to April 2 there is only one "close-call" incident on a highly-controversial Kosovo page:
[03:20, 1 April 2006 WikiMB] - WikiMB edits the table. This is his first and only appearance on this page.
[03:31, 1 April 2006 Bormalagurski] - Bormalagurski, who is a frequent visitor on the page, edits the same table only 11 minutes afterwards. In the meantime, probably realizing his mistake of logging under WikiMB's account, WikiMB compiles a message of good-will that he leaves on the talk-page and then disappears:
Bormalagurski edits 8 minutes later the same table as shown above.
On April 2, however, there is the first contact on WikiMB's user page, albeit in a most unusual fashion.
[|16:08, 2 April 2006 Luka Jačov] Luka Jacov, Bormalagurski-friendly contributor, leaves a message in Serbo-Croatian: "Boris, why do you have two accounts. Interesting that you also have the same goal - writing about all the places in Croatia. See you."
[|19:14, 2 April 2006 Bormalagurski] Three hours later Bormalagurski erases the comment. This is his FIRST edit at his school-friend's user page!!! And it is a deletion of a comment that someone else has left for User:WikiMB
[19:24, 2 April 2006 WikiMB] WikiMB appears 5 minutes afterwards and translates the second phrase as if nothing had happened.
Bormalagurski then disappears until morning April 5 when he leaves his first post ever on WikiMB's page. In fact they "both" stage a little show by leaving a message declaring their innocence at the same time (see my comment here for more details).
In conclusion, User:Bormalagurski is a very intelligent contributor that has shown impressive knowledge about the mechanisms behind Wikipedia. However, he is also an extremely disruptive and manipulative contributor. Any chance of him gaining adminship via proxy must be nipped in the bud. Therefore, block User:WikiMB.
(Please limit your statement to 500 words. Overlong statements may be removed without warning by clerks or arbitrators and replaced by much shorter summaries.)
Statement by Kelly Martin
There is no need for this matter to be arbitrated. Bormalagurski was caught sockpuppeting, and like many sockmasters, denies it. The evidence prior to using CheckUser was pretty clear (interleaved contributions, apparently orchestrated interaction to make the two accounts appear to be separate people, images uploaded by both editors on different projects both claiming to have been uploaded by the creator), and the CheckUser evidence itself merely served as the final nail in the coffin. Given that the evidence is quite clear, arbitration is not required because the appropriate administrative action is obvious. I am also concerned that parties opposed to Bormalagurski (and more importantly, to Bormalagurksi's point of view) are attempting to leverage his misconduct into a larger victory in their personal point-of-view war. I urge the Committee to reject this case. Kelly Martin (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two points. First, Minister of War's statement has a minor error in it; I am not an admin. Second, one of my main reasons for thinking this should go to Arb Com was that I was uncertain that WIkiMB was a sockpuppet. However, the evidence given above erases any doubts I had in this matter. There is a residual concern that Bormalagurski will try something like this again, but that can be handled by keeping a close eye on him and doesn't at this time need Arb Com. My advice therefore was premature. I urge rejection of the matter without prejudice. JoshuaZ13:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)
Reject. Further cases of sockputtery may be dealt with by however admins deem appropriate without us. This is normal practice. Dmcdevit·t17:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: User:69.194.137.183 feels that Jpgordon has abused his administrator powers by blocking him under the Three revert rule while involved with him in a dispute on the article Gunpowder.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
On Jpgordon's talk page: "Because you have abused your admin powers and violated 3RR laws I have referred you to Arbitration. 69.194.137.183 19:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)"
Other steps have not been pursued because Jpgordon's malicious actions are not simply a dispute - a dispute is among equals and Jpgordon has used his admin powers to prey on others. Jpgordon's actions are an abuse of admin powers and I fear that I and other are at risk of further abuse at the hands of the admin Jpgordon.
Statement by party 1
I have always used Wikipedia as a reference source and considered it to be an informative and good resource. Never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that adminstrators such as Jpgordon roam behind the scenes and manipulate information to their whims through abuse of admin powers. Yet this is exactly what has happened as can be seen on the history page of the gunpowder article. Jpgordon disliked the information I had added to the article and continually reverted my edits. With no choice, I was forced to revert Jpgordon's vandalism. Frighteningly, instead of entering into discussions about differences, Jpgordon immediately banned me based on a groundless claim of the 3RR. Jpgordon reverted my edits more than 3 times himself and then proceeded to ban me to further his edit war. I am a victim of monster admin Jpgordon's malicious abuse and I request that justice be served. Thank you.
See the historyofGunpowder, and the repeated requests and warnings regarding this editor's contributions. I was one of at least a half-dozen editors trying to get through to the anon to understand why his changes were not acceptable; eventually, I gave him the formal {{3RR}} warning; he persisted and received a 24-hour ban, upon return from which he started again with the same reversions, and initiated this case. I'll 3RR him again when he gets to 4 reverts again, probably in the next hour -- he's at three as I'm typing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that since the 48-hour block imposed by JzG expired, the anon has reverted the article (twice now) to how he wanted it -- even though there has been a considerable amount of editing in the meantime that he is obliterating in the process. Note also that he has not once discussed his changes on the talk page, or anywhere else. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a garden-variety content dispute. Plus there has been no realistic attempt to use other methods of resolutions. The wrong process, and much too early. Just zis Guy you know?13:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JzG - this is a content dispute and should be at RFC. Previous steps of dispute resolution have been unjustifiably skipped. Stifle19:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)
Requests for clarification from the Committee on matters related to the Arbitration process.
EK appeal
Five months have now passed since the end of EK3. In previous cases, I was granted an appeal option after a reasonable length of time; in EK2, the time span was only two months before the ArbCom softened my restrictions significantly (and four months after that dropped them altogether). Therefore I ask the ArbCom to consider at least softening my current restrictions, if not dropping them altogether. I'm not eager to write any lengthy arguments in my defense, as the ArbCom and I have some diametrically opposed theoretical views and I no longer realistically hope to be able to persuade them of anything; rather I would simply ask that we try to live with each other and be reasonable. Everyking04:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has only been 22 days since you were last blocked for a violation [44] and only six days since you commented extensively on a block of mine. The comments were on my talk page and so weren't a strict violation, but they violated the spirit of the ruling. If you'd stop commenting on admins' actions and also stop asking for the ruling to be relaxed, you'd probably find that it would end up being relaxed or even cancelled completely. SlimVirgin(talk)04:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is commenting on your talk page against the spirit? There was a special exemption made for that, so it seems to me that I was following the spirit, not violating it. If the spirit of the ruling frowned on that, why was an exemption made? And that block 22 days ago was considered very iffy and I was unblocked within hours. Everyking04:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The length of the block may have been iffy, but not the edit that caused it in my book. Add to that boundary-testing at RFA and elsewhere, as well as violating the spirit of the ruling by posting such comments off-wiki, and I see no reason to entertain an appeal until there's evidence you've changed your ways. Dmcdevit·t05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boundary-testing? A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is these silly assumptions you make about me. And I don't see how you can reasonably condemn me for posting comments off-wiki when you prohibit me from making them on-wiki. Does the spirit of the ruling also prohibit me from discussing my Wikipedia views in real life? Everyking05:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt: it doesn't matter if I characterize it as boundary-testing or incorrigibility or repeated mistakes or whatever. Don't make anything resembling the controversial comments and violations you have continued to make since the ruling; don't continue to instill doubt that you have the capacity or judgment to change by continually asserting that the ruling was flawed; and don't go off-wiki to call people dickheads and encourage banned users to start editing with sockpuppets and disparage others with the same kind of sniping and harassing remarks reminiscent of your actions on the Administrators' Noticeboard, and then ask to be let back onto the Administrators' Noticeboard. And don't come here asking for another appeal until you've satisfied all of these for months, not weeks. Dmcdevit·t06:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before I'm prepared to consider lifting the remedies, I still want to see that convincing evidence I requested, the evidence that shows EK won't go back to his pre-arbcom behavior (e.g, constantly second-guessing other admins based on a flimsy understanding - if any - of the case). Slimvirgin's evidence is certainly convincing, but not in a way that's good for Everyking. Raul65405:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of evidence could I present? You know it's hard to present an example to demonstrate the absence of something. Everyking05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that just before EK's March 21 block, he violated the ruling by posting criticism of Karada, an admin, to User talk:IAMthatIAM, because Karada had blocked IAMthatIAM for an inappropriate user name. [45] When I told him on his talk page that the comment violated the ruling and removed it, he got into a revert war with me over it. [46][47][48] After being blocked by Will the next day for a different violation, EK spent so long on IRC asking other admins to unblock him that he was kicked off the channel. That kind of behavior indicates that he'll go straight back to the old habits if the ruling is relaxed. SlimVirgin(talk)05:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After SV complained about my initial comment, I revised it so that there was no criticism of an admin, just general commentary on the situation. I feel I had every right to restore my revised comment, as it was clearly within the limits of the ruling. (There was also a question here of the user's talk page being protected; I said that I thought it should be unprotected so that the user could discuss his block.) Also, I don't see how me wanting to be unblocked has anything to do with these "old habits". I felt the block was wrong and I wanted to edit, so I was trying to explain the situation to people—anyway, IRC is supposed to be irrevelant to on-wiki. Everyking06:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling doesn't say you're not allowed to criticize an admin. It says you're "prohibited from making comments on non-editorial actions taken by other administrators other than on the administrator's talk page, a Request for comment, or a Request for arbitration." Karada, an admin, was engaged in a non-editorial action. You commented on it on the talk page of the user he was acting against. All your comments were therefore clearly violations of the ruling, yet you argued with me, reverted me, and even now insist they weren't, while asking for the ruling to be relaxed. As for IRC, if it's irrelevant to Wikipedia, don't go there looking for admins to undo Wikipedia blocks. SlimVirgin(talk)06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on a general situation is different from commenting on a non-editorial action by an admin. I revised my comment with that in mind. Everyking06:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ek - I'm going to ask you a question and I want an honest answer. We've made it clear your behaviors that we do and do not find acceptable. And yet, it seems obvious to me (and, I suspect, pretty much anyone else paying attention) that rather than make an honest effort at reform, you have done the very best you can to persist in those behaviors, skating as close to that line without quite crossing it. You are, in fact, constantly apologizing for those incidents where you happen to go a bit too far and stray into verbotten territory. How, then, are we to believe that if we remove that line, that you'll behave properly? (when, in point of fact, even with the remedies, you have continued to misbehave). Raul65406:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling prohibits me from discussing admin actions; I want the ruling gone so that I can discuss them again. Logically, if you simply want me to refrain from expressing my personal opinions as an administrator in any way, then it would be stupid to remove the ruling. If, on the other hand, you want me to alter the expression of my opinions to take a different form, then it's simple: as far as civility goes, I feel I've been much better about civility since before the case was even accepted last year. I have also recently been trying very hard to avoid continually asserting the correctness of my position in these arguments (as you arbs continue to do nevertheless), instead trying to strike a more pragmatic, compromising tone. Everyking06:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page just a few days ago (User_talk:SlimVirgin/archive28#HK), you were precisely "continually asserting the correctness of [your] position" against the four admins who were arguing against you, and this was once again a situation you knew little or nothing about. You only stopped arguing because people stopped responding to you. SlimVirgin(talk)07:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. EK, you seem to think that the restrictions placed on you are totally spurious, but then you persistently infringe them, point to your said infringements and decry the restrictions as overly burdensome and unnecessary; conversely, we look at your, err, "indiscretions" with disappointment and dismay that you are persistently and consistently are unable to live up to even the restrictions' poor aspirations for your behaviour. That you keep asking for us to remove these restrictions is bordering on laughable.
And he's still at it. Here Everyking inserts himself into a discussion about a checkuser finding by David Gerard, saying "I suppose the claim is that your IPs match. Of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is actually true, or even if so if this is something that cannot be explained by other factors". Perhaps not a breach of the letter of his ban on discussing the non-editorial actions of administrators, but certainly pushing the envelope. --Tony Sidaway11:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just can't win. I try to be careful and not violate the ruling, but then when I say something like that, which seems safe, somebody will claim it's a breach of the spirit of the ruling. The spirit of the ruling is very strict, I note, much more so than the letter. If only it didn't keep changing, so I could keep from falling afoul of it. Everyking14:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The enforcement for Crotalus horridus conflicts with the enforcement provided in the userbox remedy. Presumably the enforcement applies only to Crotalus's probation should that be invoked. Or can admins choose whichever they prefer? (And, if they can, could 5 two-week blocks result in triggering the year-block even though the remedy would not have been invoked since it limits blocks to a week?) -Splashtalk16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, we (I?) didn't do that too well. The options are to remove the enforcement from Remedy 1 or to specify that the enforcement only applies to Remedies 2 and 3. I support the former. Sam Korn(smoddy)17:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<ping>. I guess it's not especially important since Ch appears to be abiding by it, but it's at least untidy to let it lie. -Splashtalk23:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Malagurski ₪ 00:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
