Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

message: I'm not involved in this dispute, but I would like to display my opinion as an observer over the whole dispute anyways. The problem with Everyking seems to be that he reverts pretty much any edit to Ashlee Simpson related articles because the edits by others are mostly removals of (possibily) not so important stuff, and EK strongly disagrees with this. This case might be closed now, and if it is, the only proposed decision will be that EK is not allowed to revert any Ashlee Simpson related article more than once per 24 hours. Although I'm sure the ArbCom already knows the page, I might point to User:Everyking/Agreement, where Everyking and Johnleemk agreed to not revert Autobiography (album) more than once per 24 hours on Dec 29. If you have a look at the History of the Ashlee Simpson article from that time you can see that this obviously did not help in the dispute, as EK continued to revert, once a day, as he himself proposed. With this in mind, I'm not sure if the currenct proposed decision will help in this dispute in any way, and would like the ArbCom to rethink the current motion to close. Just my two cents. --Conti|✉ 17:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
:I've promised not to revert again, fully or partially, at all. Everyking 17:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. Then you shouldn't mind at all if an enforcable "no reversions" clause passes, should you? --Calton 21:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, I would mind, because submitting to something voluntarily is different from a punitive measure, but I wouldn't mind all that much. In practical terms, I suppose it's inconsequential. Everyking 22:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, the key difference is not (as you mischaracterize it) punitive, but enforceable, in line with your repeated pattern of unilaterally deciding what is or isn't an acceptable edit or behavior. In practical terms, it is consequential that actions should have consequences, something I believe should be reflected in any discipline that ArbCom decides to impose. --Calton 00:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conti's opinion

message: I was not especially privy to this dispute;  I have for the most part been an outside observer, though I did vote in a number of the Ashlee Simpson article VfDs, and I endorsed the RfC against him.  I feel (and I mean this not as an attack on Everyking) that Everyking has an abnormal and perhaps obssessive interest in Ashlee Simpson and her work which causes him to act very unusual in regard to these articles.
When I say "unusual" I mean:
*Everyking has been remarkably defensive and protective over the articles in question, to the degree that he will not consider significant edits to them from other contributors.  In my opinion, he seems to want to exercise powers of ownership, which is not allowed here.
*In disputes thus resulting, Everyking has been unusally aggressive, sometimes venturing to the point of downright hate and crude vulgarity.
*In order to exercise control of the article in question, Everyking has taken to breaking rules and "gaming the system".
Now, I must admit, it is my opinion that all of the above is typically very unlike Everyking.  In all matters excepting this one he has appeared to me to be both a fine contributor and an exemplary admin.
Thus, it is my opinion (and preference) that Everyking should be barred from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson or containing material on Ashlee Simpson, either for a certain period of time (several months at minimum) or permanently.
I believe that such would be the most productive course of action, for as I have stated, Everyking has been an excellent contributor in regard to all other subjects.
That said, while I would prefer the aforementioned penalty, I am going to assume good faith and hope either a reverting limit or editing limit will promote reform on Everyking's part.  I hope in the end this can be resolved as amicably as possible in regard to all parties involved, and I wish Everyking luck and I hope sincerely that he can someday once again be the respectable and prolific editor he once was. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with everything Blankfaze has said. Ambi 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I have no objection to any revert limitation, as stated, but I will leave if my normal editing on any subject is flatly prohibited. There is a limit to what a person can accept. Everyking 07:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I would agree such a prohibition is unacceptable.  But I'm unconvinced that there is a less aggresive way to adequately resolve the problems with your behaviour. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't believe me when I say I will not revert again? Everyking 07:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, I wish to assume good faith.  However, given your conduct throughout this process, I'm not sure if I should, or to what degree I should.  Perhaps a better solution would be some sort of midway point;  Initially only a revert restriction would be instituted, however, if you violated the restriction to a certain degree (one time or a certain number of times), then you would face being barred from editing the article(s). BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me if I violated the restriction I would just be blocked for 24 hour periods as long as I did it. Surely that's punishment enough. And if my behavior really was judged to still be problematic, then another case could be opened. Blankfaze, regardless of what you think of my behavior—and I don't claim I behaved well—you must see that I wrote those articles and that I am dedicated to keeping the content up-to-date. I can at least be relied on for that. It would be counter-productive to ban me from them, and it would force me to leave, not because I would want to, but because I do have a certain level of dignity that I won't forfeit. Everyking 07:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's punishment enough. - I'm not sure if it is.  ...then another case could be opened. - Sure it could, but these cases take a lot of time and work.  If the problem was the same it would be unnecessary to go through all this again.  I do recognise that you are responisble for much of those articles' content, and that you dutifully maintain them.  However, that's half what I find fault with;  you seem to inisist on exercising control of the articles' content, which is unacceptable. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply do not insist on that. I have nothing more to say about that. Everyking 07:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Past promises have always been kept. Name an instance when they haven't. I will accept any kind of revert restriction, as stated, but there must be a point at which I can have the restrictions reviewed. Everyking 07:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaaaaaaaaah. I've just spent half an hour of my life reading the old VfD's and Talk page archives unsuccessfully looking for evidence of one. There is so much material it is impossible. Nevertheless I am absolutely sure that I remember a couple of occassions when you said "I won't comment on this again" and then only a few hours later you commented on the subject again. I turn it around Mr game te system ... can Everyking supply us with a diff for evidence of a past promise that he made that he did keep? Personally I doubt that there is one. - Drstuey 11:07, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyking/Agreement? You may want to review the evidence page; IIRC I linked to a few broken promises, in particular one diff where Everyking promised to allow a change, and another where he removed the change a few days later. Johnleemk | Talk 11:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And you will not find a single example of me reverting that article more than once in a 24 hour period after signing that agreement. I remained very conscious of it. Everyking 11:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You kept the letter but not spirit of the agreement (your partial reverts would suddenly add up to a full revert). That is why we are so concerned about making these sanctions watertight. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I wholly agree.  Any user sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee should have the right to appeal for a review of penalties levied against him/her. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 07:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. However, considering past behaviour (particularly Everyking's propensity for gaming the system) and the content of the recent talk page dialog between 172 and Everyking, I'd like to see some sort of protection against a reoccurrence of any of this behaviour if more specific restrictions were to be lifted. Ambi 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then that'd be another restriction, wouldn't it? Come on, Rebecca. It was a revert war. I'm just getting it particularly harshly because I was such a minority in the dispute. Perhaps that's my due. But I'm not reverting now, and I'm not going to revert again. Do you think I am the kind of person who would wait for his restrictions to be lifted and then start revert warring again? What do you think would happen to me then? Why would I want to go months trying to be more easygoing and tolerant and then decide one day to go back to square one? Obviously, reverting didn't work before. Instead, it got me here. So why in God's name would I do it again? Everyking 10:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, isn't that what you've been doing throughout this dispute? It's interesting to note that you only got blocked for violating the 3RR after the RfC. You were aware of community opinion that you should back down, and you continued. You knew very well this dispute was boiling over for close to two months already, and you chose to continue. Not forgetting all those times you've intentionally gamed the 3RR. If you're going to regain good faith, you'll have to do it gradually. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm tired of being berated by you, John. It's like you are leading some kind of campaign against me, and nothing is ever good enough. Every time I make a concession, suddenly you become that much more extreme. Everyking 11:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall you making any decent concessions. Your "concessions" have always been made on your terms and never others'. They always err on the side of your revision of an article or assuming you are in the right. I once assumed good faith with you a long time ago, but once you admitted you insisted changes to the article be made on your terms (you then denied it, but the wording of your original statement clearly implied it), I lost all faith in you. Even so, I never once reverted you. I always rewrote the article differently, trying for something you would accept. If anything, it's like you are leading a campaign against us. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My feelings on the proposed decision

message: Strong agree with Blankfaze.  Weak agree with Johnleemk. Barno 21:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One more opinion

message: Instead of saying "Everyking has an apparent interest in Ashlee Simpson" why not admit that he's acting as a volunteer public relations flack for Simpson?  Case in point:  the single most notorious fact about Ashlee Simpson is that she got caught lip-syncing on Saturday Night Live (the page where I ran into Everyking).  Every newspaper called it lip-syncing, the show's producers and cast more or less admitted that's what it was by poking fun the following week - yet Everyking refused to let us use the word li-sync on the SNL page, and insisted on substituting an unclear version of events that had been issued by Simpson's own P.R. crew!  He told us "I'll revert this page till doomsday" to preserve this version of events.  He also insisted on appending this apologia for Simpson (she was sick that week, acid reflux, etc.) despite our argument that it was extraneous to the SNL page.  Everyking is trying to force Wikipedia to endorse Simpson's public statements over the observations of every single objective media observer (and the opinion of the greater part of the public). 68.118.61.219 01:09, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever heard of NPOV? You can say some people called it lip-synching, you can't say it was lip-synching. Everyking 01:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: However, criticism and alternative explanation needs to be ackwnolidged. GeneralPatton 03:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course it does, you're preaching to the choir. Everyking 04:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV interest in AS