Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2

• Everyking
• Snowspinner

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Since the previous arbcom case, Everyking has continued his quest to add what is widely viewed as excessive amounts of trivia to articles related to Ashlee Simpson. He has also repeatedly violated his revert parole through "partial reverts" whereby he only puts part of the disputed text back, resulting in the edit wars on the Ashlee articles continuing to this day.

He has, in the past week and a half, been blocked three times for reverts. The first block was undone after I, in a moment of overreaction to IRC provocation, extended it to 100 days. (I apologize for this, though continue to feel that everyking's provocation was unwarranted) The second was undone after he promised to Tony Sidaway that he would not revert again. Four days later, he reverted an Ashlee article, and a third block was employed, whcih was this time lifted by Merovignian, after a similar promise to the one he broke to Tony.

This latter problem points to a more general issue that I think needs to be looked at in one of its many forms, which is the failure of administrators at large to pay adequate respect to each other's blocks, and thus to lead to situations where it becomes the case that one can become unblocked if one can only complain to the right admin. I feel that, while Tony's unblock was arguably reasonable, the recent rise in block/unblock wars among the admins and the repeated unblocking of Everyking is becoming a problem that needs a ruling. Quite frankly, I think it's incredibly poor form to unblock someone without consulting with the blocking admin to get a full explanation of the reasons.

But I would also like to look at Everyking's behavior on Ashlee articles, and ask that he be banned from them entirely. I will note that his counduct on other articles is without exception of high quality, but his Ashlee contributions are leading to undue stress on the admins who have to continually watch them, and the conflicts appear to be leading to undue stress on Everyking himself, who has become more hostile in dealings with other users in general since these conflicts began. For the good of Wikipedia at large, I ask that these disputes be terminated, and suggest that Everyking's cessation of editing on articles related to Ashlee Simpson is the easiest way to do it.

Regarding prior dispute resolution, Everyking's hostility and aggressiveness has made it clear to me, at least, that there is no reasoning with him. He believes, still, that he has done no wrong on Ashlee Simpson articles and that everyone who disagrees with him is so obviously wrong as to not need to be considered.

As for initial evidence, here are some of his reverts. Note the hostile edit summary on the last as well: [1] [2] [3] [4] Snowspinner 00:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the fundamental argument against me is. I suppose, as best I can gather, that it's that I try to "own" these articles, or that I am a revert warrior. Well, I ask anyone considering the case to actually look at what I have said and how I have acted. My position has always been strongly in favor of discussion, consensus and compromise, and recognition of the basic reality that, when a wide range of points are being considered, one person is unlikely to have a correct idea about each and every one of them. This is what discussion is so useful for—sort out differences, get to the root of the questions, and recognize errors on one's own part. So I've always tried to direct the dispute towards the talk page: I think agreeable compromises can be reached on all issues, and in fact I'm almost certain of it, because I am so flexible that I would make almost any concessions. As I have seen it, though, my opponents have generally preferred the logic of revert warring, and when that has failed them—and I have been tenacious in retaliatory reverting, I don't deny it, too aggressive at points, to be sure, but with the correct aim of concentrating the controversy on discussion rather than reverting—they have sought punitive measures against me to win the content dispute. I have made various proposals, such as to discuss everything in the article point by point, and to concentrate contentious editing on a "temp" version of the article to avoid the kind of heated revert warring we've seen in the past. Consensus is not really a difficult thing, if all parties are willing to accept it: there is honest discussion, and if by the end of it all parties haven't reached a mutually-satisfactory agreement, then whoever is in a small minority will have to concede and accept what may not be satisfactory to him or her.

Now, that's my position—concentrate on reaching a concensus, and let a loser be graceful in accepting a result when it goes against him or her. To say that I seek article ownership is so patently absurd to me that I have generally avoided even responding to the charge—where is the evidence for it? All I know is my statements which in no uncertain terms condemn the idea of article ownership—indeed, it is no great leap to see the effort by Snowspinner and a few others as an attempt to assert article ownership by eliminating me from the discussion and from the process of consensus-building. Anyone who accuses me of revert warring should see the pattern of behavior by a few of my opponents—repeated reverts, unconditionally, ignoring all my attempts at compromise edits. They have continued to do this despite the January ruling which prohibits me from reverting—I make an edit, they revert it; I try a compromise edit, they revert that too. And so on. Eventually, someone (usually Snowspinner, who on IRC has declared his open and personal hostility towards me and his determination to watch me for anything that he could conceivably attack me for) will block me for trying to compromise (partial reverting, they call it—you might as well say handing an object to someone is partially throwing it at them). Well, what's the point of condemning reverts if you won't accept attempts at compromise either?

I defend my theoretical position fully—compromise, consensus-building, civility, and development of a comprehensive and quality article that is satisfactory to everyone. I don't think my behavior in practice has always fully adhered to the theoretical position, but I recognize my errors and try not to repeat them. I have been in error at points in being too aggressive, certainly—I don't uphold such things, I recognize my errors, but it continues to be held against me. How many times has "i'll revert you till doomsday" been cited? Yet that was said at the very beginning of the dispute, and it has never for a minute been in line with my theoretical position—I've always recognized it as an error—and if occasional errors in judgment, even when recognized as such, were worth a punishment such as the one that's being proposed, we wouldn't have any editors left, because we all make mistakes now and then. That's just being human—I get angry, I revert too aggressively, OK, criticize me for it, and I'll criticize myself. That's not grounds for punishment—let's think outside of the box of punitive logic; it's a harmful and negative way of thinking, contrary to the spirit of the project. Overall, I've been conciliatory and have concentrated on discussion rather than revert warring. The article at present is filled from top to bottom with compromises, and I'll keep making compromises as long as there are disputes to resolve. Everyking 11:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Recuse. Ambi 05:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept ➥the Epopt 11:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept, I fear - David Gerard 12:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Accept mainly to hear evidence of block/unblock warring and do something about it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:46, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
• Abstain. Neutrality^talk 19:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - mav 03:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse -- sannse (talk) 00:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) (added on return from break)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

1) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Passed, 5-0.

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave calmly, courteously, and civilly in their dealings with other users. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed, 5-0.

3) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Passed, 5-0.

1) Despite a zero-revert restriction on articles related to Ashlee Simpson being placed on Everyking in the previous case against him, he has continued to revert on these articles in direct violation of the restriction.

Passed, 5-0.

2) Outside of articles related to Ashlee Simpson, Everyking's conduct has remained good.

Passed, 5-0.

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) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson. Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by this limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation. Everyking may apply to the Arbitration Committee for this sanction to be lifted in two months.

Passed, 5-0.

Everyking is placed under a mentorship of silsor, Tony Sidaway and Rhobite. The mentors have the power to, by decree, revert Everyking's edits to Ashlee Simpson related pages (even if such reverts violate the three revert rule), or remove Everyking's privileges to edit particular Ashlee Simpson related pages. Determining what is an Ashlee Simpson related article will be left up to the discretion of the mentors. They will also act for Everyking, as his advocate if needed: that if he is expressing himself badly, they will step in and help communication as needed. If at any time, Everyking feels the mentors are too restrictive on him, he can change his mind and opt out of the mentorship; his ban will resume, and he may file another appeal with the Arbitration Committee. The mentoring arrangement will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee after four months. The three mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. This is so that playing mentors off against each other is unlikely to occur.

Mentorship page - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Mentorship

(Note - at the time of this remedy, there were 4 members of the committee who were inactive)

• Accept. Everyking's actions and statements have not inspired confidence in me that he will be able to edit those articles without causing problems. However, I think this is a fair compromise that will let him edit the article while still giving the other people who edit that article a safety net. →Raul654 00:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're brokering this thing, shouldn't you recuse yourself? RickK 07:35, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think if the matter in question is something agreeable to all parties, a compromise solution, there is no need for recusal. Everyking 09:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It may or may not cross the streams. We'll see if it's close-run - David Gerard 18:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse as usual with Everyking issues -- sannse (talk) 17:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept. A note to EK: you appear to be trying to find loopholes in the mentors' powers. This is the wrong approach. They are there to help you work with others - to help you not conflict with other editors. You have to demonstrate to the mentors' satisfaction that you can work better with others on articles on a topic that is very dear to you. If you don't like it in practice, you call off the deal and the restrictions return. You should consider this an opportunity to excel. Your mentors are no-nonsense, but they're good guys. Really - David Gerard 18:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Accept - this has been proven to work in the past and I hope it continues to do so. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 13:29, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
• Accept, let's give it a try ➥the Epopt 00:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Reject Fred Bauder 01:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? I don't recall seeing any comment from you on the matter, and if you have issues with it, it'd be nice for the proponents of this to know what they are. Ambi 05:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Recuse. Ambi 05:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As of 16:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC) The previous mentorship arrangement has been formally ended. Everyking is free to edit Ashlee Simpson related pages.

Formally requesting repeal of my mentor arrangement after four months. Everyking 22:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ending the mentorship -- other issues aside, all indiciations are that Everyking's problematic editing on Ashlee Simpson related articles is a thing of the past. →Raul654 02:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From asking around, and what I've heard generally, the arrangement is no longer necessary. I support not renewing the arrangement.

James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ending mentorship. Fred_Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the appointed mentors, I support this application. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support ending the mentorship. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 14:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why this should not be allowed to end at this point. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a mentor, I don't see a reason to continue this arrangement. Rhobite 15:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As another mentor - yes, definitely. silsor 16:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]