Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking

message: I don't think we're ready to submit to Arbitration yet.  I move that, if Johnleemk is willing, we take this to RfC.  I will cooperate with such a move by providing one part of the necessary certification by two users to an attempt at dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that would be wise; I fail to see what that can accomplish. It brings community attention to the dispute (literally, requests comments), which I think has been sufficiently done before by the page's protection, and then the several VfDs. As has been proven by the sheer number of people trying to edit the article, nobody prefers Everyking's version but himself. A lot of people have tried to negotiate with him and failed. The point of no return for an RfC was passed a long time ago; he has refused to stand down despite community pressure. iMeowbot seems to agree as well; see my user talk. Johnleemk | Talk 16:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Seeing that Autobiography (album), around which this dispute revolves, has been on RfC since the end of November, it would appear that route has already been covered.  The same discussions have also been carried out at length, repeatedly, in WP:FAC.  What might another round of RfC accomplish at this point? iMeowbot~Mw 16:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]

message: :I don't know what John hopes to achieve; I'm willing to discuss anything and everything and listen to whatever compromises anybody wants to put forward. I don't know what I've done that he thinks should be punished; I haven't broken the 3RR (well, I did back in November on one or two occasions, but I've long since taken a pledge not to ever do that again). It's just a content dispute that's proving difficult to resolve. Autobiography sales and chart positions was a way to try to address the complaints of John and a few others without losing any of the information, and currently it appears that it will be kept on VfD, so I'm not even sure what the other side is still fighting for. By taking this to arbitration, it gives the distinct appearance that John does not want to continue to negotiate on this and wishes instead to use arbitration as a tactic to get his way, hoping I'll be blocked from editing so he will be free to edit the article according to his own wishes without any opposition from me. Everyking 15:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Everyking|Everyking]]

message: =====Tony Sidaway=====
Despite some earlier hostility to two of the spin-offs from Autobiography (album) which were based on my perception that the album cover article was too trivial for an article of its own and that it was too early (three days after release) to tell whether the single La La merited an article, I engaged in some edits to the sales and chart tables on the album article.  My edits were welcomed by Everyking .
Lately I noticed that what looked like good edits by Johnleemk were being summarily reverted by Everyking  with the comment "john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them".  
I intervened and reverted to Johnleemk's edit. Everyking counter-reverted.  I did not revert this article again.  In an effort to reduce the dispute to a more manageable form I then replace only one paragraph from JohnLeemk's edit, with some modifications of my own, and invited Everyking to discuss and modify the edit.  He simply reverted.  I reminded him of the three revert rule.  There followed a day of productive editing involving Johnleemk, myself and Everyking.  But the next morning Everyking duly reverted every single edit that had been done in the previous twenty-four hours, with the execption of his own.  He openly threatened to use his revert in this way, so as to control the content of the article.
Sometimes Everyking has been more specific about his reasons for rejecting an edit ("it wasn't released in many countries on july 20!"), but nevertheless his habit has been to revert the entire edit instead of correcting the error.  Other times if asked what he thought was wrong with an edit he'd simply say "Well, with one or two minor exceptions, I dislike the whole edit."
I observed after a day or two that, while Everyking was sometimes giving lip service to discussion of edits and reaching consensus, in practice he was acting as a gatekeeper to the article and imposing on the unwillingness of others to engage in revert warring.  Consensus, it seemed, meant that no edits were to be performed unless discussed previously and given the imprimatur by Everyking.  Everyking claimed (and continues to claim) that edits to this article, an article about a pop singer's debut album, are controversial. This is only true in the sense that Everyking squats over the pot and objects to almost every edit that he has not performed himself.  There is nothing intrinsically controversial about the subject matter.  The driving principle of editing on Wikipedia, "be bold, but not reckless" is thus stood on its head. The watchword seems to be "be timid."
In the course of attempting to reason with Everyking I have been falsely accused of not discussing changes on the talk page, revert warring, threatening him with arbitration, and making radical changes to the article.  It has proven impossible to edit in these conditions in the face of these de facto false accusations of bad faith, and my attempts to resolve our problems foundered on the same false accusations.  Unwilling to engage in revert warring, sickened by repeated barefaced falsehoods, I have withdrawn from editing the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, what do you think I should do? I don't dispute I've gotten pissed off and a bit out of hand at points, and I've apologized for that. I've also perhaps reverted at times when I should've only reverted maybe 80-90% of your edits; that was a bit hasty and I should've done more reflection before acting. For that, too, I am sorry. But John is telling me that my further participation in the article is unacceptable and that I am not to be a part of any consensus to be worked out. This is wholly unacceptable to me, and if it's enforced I will leave Wikipedia. Do you yourself believe that I should not be allowed to participate any further in the article, or more generally on Wikipedia as a whole? If you do not, tell me what I can do so that we can both have some of what we want. I've tried compromising for days. I created a subarticle as an attempt at that, and now that's probably going to kept on VfD, so I think that's pretty much established. But beyond that, we can talk all day long. I'm open to summarizing and all kinds of revisions. Everyking 18:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am telling you that acting as a gatekeeper is unacceptable. By saying that I am telling you you cannot participate, you are implicitly agreeing that you do, indeed, insist on discussion of any edit except the most minute on the talk page, and if it doesn't result in your imprimatur, well, too bad. That's what I'm telling you to stop. This is the second time I've had to explain this to you. Furthermore, I keep telling you "don't revert just because blah..." but you keep reading it as a ban on all participation. Are you saying you only participate through reversion? Johnleemk | Talk 18:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, you said that I can't participate unless I consent to whatever the majority wants. I'm willing to compromise with others all day long, but it appears you are saying that there will be no compromise, that I will either accept whatever you want or I will not continue to participate. Everyking 19:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you not to revert them. Reverting is not compromise. Johnleemk | Talk 19:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, I'll happily accept a restriction of one revert per day on this article, excluding blatant vandalism, if you and Tony will accept that same restriction. Everyking 19:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd gladly do that, but that's not really the point; with the 3RR in place, you just waited 24 hours to revert us, as Tony pointed out. I fear the same could occur here, especially since you haven't given any guarantee that that will not happen. Anyway, I'm signing off for the night. See ya'. Johnleemk | Talk 19:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll give my solemn pledge not to revert the exact same edit twice, which will apply indefinitely, or at least until we come to a mutual agreement that the pledges are no longer necessary at some future time. How's that? I have always been trying to compromise and discuss, and it appears you two don't believe me, so I will undertake whatever sorts of pledges are required of me to prove my sincerity, provided my fundamental right to edit and be an equal participant in the discussion is respected. Everyking 19:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of attempts to resolve problem

message: Despite some earlier hostility to two of the spin-offs from Autobiography (album) which were based on my perception that the album cover article was too trivial for an article of its own and that it was too early (three days after release) to tell whether the single La La merited an article, I engaged in some edits to the sales and chart tables on the album article.  My edits were welcomed by Everyking .
Lately I noticed that what looked like good edits by Johnleemk were being summarily reverted by Everyking  with the comment "john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them".  
I intervened and reverted to Johnleemk's edit. Everyking counter-reverted.  I did not revert this article again.  In an effort to reduce the dispute to a more manageable form I then replace only one paragraph from JohnLeemk's edit, with some modifications of my own, and invited Everyking to discuss and modify the edit.  He simply reverted.  I reminded him of the three revert rule.  There followed a day of productive editing involving Johnleemk, myself and Everyking.  But the next morning Everyking duly reverted every single edit that had been done in the previous twenty-four hours, with the execption of his own.  He openly threatened to use his revert in this way, so as to control the content of the article.
Sometimes Everyking has been more specific about his reasons for rejecting an edit ("it wasn't released in many countries on july 20!"), but nevertheless his habit has been to revert the entire edit instead of correcting the error.  Other times if asked what he thought was wrong with an edit he'd simply say "Well, with one or two minor exceptions, I dislike the whole edit."
I observed after a day or two that, while Everyking was sometimes giving lip service to discussion of edits and reaching consensus, in practice he was acting as a gatekeeper to the article and imposing on the unwillingness of others to engage in revert warring.  Consensus, it seemed, meant that no edits were to be performed unless discussed previously and given the imprimatur by Everyking.  Everyking claimed (and continues to claim) that edits to this article, an article about a pop singer's debut album, are controversial. This is only true in the sense that Everyking squats over the pot and objects to almost every edit that he has not performed himself.  There is nothing intrinsically controversial about the subject matter.  The driving principle of editing on Wikipedia, "be bold, but not reckless" is thus stood on its head. The watchword seems to be "be timid."
In the course of attempting to reason with Everyking I have been falsely accused of not discussing changes on the talk page, revert warring, threatening him with arbitration, and making radical changes to the article.  It has proven impossible to edit in these conditions in the face of these de facto false accusations of bad faith, and my attempts to resolve our problems foundered on the same false accusations.  Unwilling to engage in revert warring, sickened by repeated barefaced falsehoods, I have withdrawn from editing the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, what do you think I should do? I don't dispute I've gotten pissed off and a bit out of hand at points, and I've apologized for that. I've also perhaps reverted at times when I should've only reverted maybe 80-90% of your edits; that was a bit hasty and I should've done more reflection before acting. For that, too, I am sorry. But John is telling me that my further participation in the article is unacceptable and that I am not to be a part of any consensus to be worked out. This is wholly unacceptable to me, and if it's enforced I will leave Wikipedia. Do you yourself believe that I should not be allowed to participate any further in the article, or more generally on Wikipedia as a whole? If you do not, tell me what I can do so that we can both have some of what we want. I've tried compromising for days. I created a subarticle as an attempt at that, and now that's probably going to kept on VfD, so I think that's pretty much established. But beyond that, we can talk all day long. I'm open to summarizing and all kinds of revisions. Everyking 18:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am telling you that acting as a gatekeeper is unacceptable. By saying that I am telling you you cannot participate, you are implicitly agreeing that you do, indeed, insist on discussion of any edit except the most minute on the talk page, and if it doesn't result in your imprimatur, well, too bad. That's what I'm telling you to stop. This is the second time I've had to explain this to you. Furthermore, I keep telling you "don't revert just because blah..." but you keep reading it as a ban on all participation. Are you saying you only participate through reversion? Johnleemk | Talk 18:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, you said that I can't participate unless I consent to whatever the majority wants. I'm willing to compromise with others all day long, but it appears you are saying that there will be no compromise, that I will either accept whatever you want or I will not continue to participate. Everyking 19:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I told you not to revert them. Reverting is not compromise. Johnleemk | Talk 19:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All right then, I'll happily accept a restriction of one revert per day on this article, excluding blatant vandalism, if you and Tony will accept that same restriction. Everyking 19:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd gladly do that, but that's not really the point; with the 3RR in place, you just waited 24 hours to revert us, as Tony pointed out. I fear the same could occur here, especially since you haven't given any guarantee that that will not happen. Anyway, I'm signing off for the night. See ya'. Johnleemk | Talk 19:20, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I'll give my solemn pledge not to revert the exact same edit twice, which will apply indefinitely, or at least until we come to a mutual agreement that the pledges are no longer necessary at some future time. How's that? I have always been trying to compromise and discuss, and it appears you two don't believe me, so I will undertake whatever sorts of pledges are required of me to prove my sincerity, provided my fundamental right to edit and be an equal participant in the discussion is respected. Everyking 19:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]