Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking

Comment by Redquark
I am a user who has not been involved in this dispute in any way until now, but I've read much of the interchange. I think the arbitrators should refuse this case. Note first that the only point of dispute here is the quality of the article Autobiography (album) (and subarticles). In my opinion, the feelings of the valued contributors involved in this case are more important than the quality of this lone article. At this point we should strive to cool down tensions between users rather than worrying about the quality of Autobiography (album). It seems to me that formal arbitration can only further increase stress and hard feelings on all sides.

User:Johnleemk has stated that his objectives in starting this case are for User:Everyking to "learn" something  and to achieve "closure". But enough discussion has already taken place that I believe Everyking has fully absorbed all arguments and is unlikely to change his views due to further discussion. Moreover, all alleged improper behavior on the part of Everyking is confined to this one article, and his edits on the rest of Wikipedia are of high quality. So even if he were to "learn" something it would be of little consequence. Second, any closure that can be achieved by an arbitration resolution is likely to be a bitter one. In my experience, the best closure comes from just letting time pass by and forgetting about things. So on both counts, bringing this case to arbitration is counterproductive IMHO.

I have a simple suggestion: what if for two months or so, everyone involved in this case just quit discussing it, stopped editing Autobiography (album) and turned to other things. This will help cool down all the wikistress, and perhaps after having had time to cool down and mull it over, the contributors will find that the dispute has evaporated. --Redquark 01:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments; I would probably agree with you on taking a break from editing for a while, except for the fact that it's current and I feel obligated to keep it up-to-date, and also that I'd really like to keep working on it to get it up to featured quality&mdash;it's kind of a personal mission of mine at the moment, a goal to work towards. But this whole dispute is taking up far too much of my wiki-time, and I may try to tone down my involvement accordingly. Everyking 01:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't care what happens to the articles any more. I've isolated myself from them, and so has every editor involved except Everyking. The issue is no longer the articles (I don't think Everyking is just a fan of Autobiography; he seems devoted to Ashlee Simpson, something I have no problem with as long as it does not affect his editing) &mdash; it's his attitude towards them and the people editing them. I don't care if Everyking goes on insisting that charts are important; what's important now is that he stops preventing people from editing "his" articles just because he doesn't like their edits. Reene who is currently on vacation has left a message on User talk:Dr Zen that I think should be read; this is not a dispute over article content. That is not something the arbcom is supposed to handle. The issue is Everyking's abrasive manner of handling articles related to Ashlee Simpson and insisting all major edits receive his imprimatur. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I absolutely do not insist all major edits received my "imprimatur"; that's preposterous and a good example of how John has blown everything associated with the case far out of proportion. I have, in the past, insisted that significant removal of verifiable information, if it is a point of contention, should not be done unless consensus is reached on talk. I have only said this because I don't believe revert warring is very effective&mdash;to me, the information is important, so I feel obligated to restore it, and then they remove it again and say I'm terrible for daring to restore it. That's why I generally think talking to precede acting in the case of this particular article. I have only said that because of the history of conflict and the desire to restrict it to reasonable discussion instead of fruitless revert warring. But that certainly doesn't apply to all edits. Autobiography (album) needs improvement in places, and I'd welcome any edit that improved it, regardless of whether it was discussed first. To me, the issue of talking before acting is just a matter of good sense and civility in resolving a dispute.


 * But the biggest problem here is that John has brought a case against me that is essentially intangible in its goals: what does he want from me? This is not something he's been able to properly answer, and if he could answer it, there'd be no need for a case, because I'd agree to just about anything he required of me, within the limits of respecting my rights as a Wikipedian to edit and be heard. He says he wants me to "learn" something. John is 14, but he's out to teach me lessons. Well, I probably need to learn some lessons&mdash;a great many, I imagine&mdash;but that I need to edit cooperatively is not one of them, having been a generally uncontroversial Wikipedian for almost a year who was voted in as a sysop with only one dissenting vote (by Wik, on the grounds of my inclusionism). How can the ArbCom rule on something as subjective as whether I subconsciously believe I "own" an article? What sort of penalty does John believe is appropriate for this purported sin? I offered to limit my reverts to one per day, which in my opinion is an extremely generous concession, but it was not received well by John. So I don't know what I should do, what I can do. Hopefully John will just withdraw the case, but otherwise I ask the committee to reject it. Everyking 16:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I just happen to be the most vocal of those who was involved in this; you only need statistics to indicate how Everyking has caused the article to stagnate. From peer review's archive, courtesy of Calton:
 * As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been 554 edits (counting the original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size. The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average of just under 4 edits per day, though that was not spread out evenly . . . Of the 554 edits, 496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking. Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single number at 13 edits. Of those 56 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at least four violations of the 3-revert rule (including an astonishing 8 reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).
 * The problem here is that everybody knows what the dispute is: Everyone asked except you and sjc has agreed the article needs to be trimmed. Reene and I both attempted to do so. Hemanshu tried to do so but gave up, and I don't blame him. We have talked and talked for ages on many different pages and nothing has been achieved. The existence of conflict is due to you. I was extremely polite when we first began discussing this, but your behaviour has made it clear you insist on edits receiving your imprimatur. When you call for consensus, what it means is "I want you to talk to me". Your attitude and actions toward edits that are not yours, in spite of the fact that they have received overwhelming community approval is a violation of policy. That's all there is to it. I don't know what penalty the arbcom will impose if they accept this case; I don't really care. What's important is that it's drummed into you that you cannot carry on like this.
 * I don't really care about how you got your sysophood or whatnot; that's not important to me (I could say "Oh, I had few edits, but blankfaze still voted support!" &mdash; it's all nonsense, really). I know you got a barnstar from Neutrality, who I respect, but that's not important. That's the difference. You think I'm out to get you because I've been the most vocal of your critics. The fact is, nobody else thinks much of you after your antics with Autobiography; Reene has been quiet because she's on vacation (though she posted a short note on Dr Zen's talk page), Ambi's avoided this because she respects 172 who supports you, and everyone else is quiet because they can't take the heat.
 * Some people are fazed by your long replies. Eventually you wear people down, so they stop editing "your" articles. How many times have Hemanshu, Gentgeen, Calton, Tony, myself, iMeowbot (who seems to be quite knowledgeable on this as well), anyone who you reverted and fought with on the talk pages made major edits to "your" articles recently? Almost numero uno. Everyone (except Dr Zen, who seems to be even more optimistic than I was when I sought to continue mediation) has given up all hope on you and your behaviour with regard to articles you seem to have a fanatic devotion to. Yes, you don't revert minor edits or those that add to the article. But you have to accept at some point, some material from the article has to go. It can't always be on your terms. We've tried reasoning with you; in particular, I like iMeowbot's and Dr Zen's long explanations of why raw chart data shouldn't be in prose, but you insist on reverting.
 * I was intending to respond to your offer, but the 'pedia was down just now (as you can see in the page history...). It's a start, but I think it's better if that applied to all Ashlee Simpson-related articles (since it's obvious you're a big fan &mdash; nothing wrong with that, but when it affects your editing so badly...). If you agree, I will probably withdraw this case for now, and in addition, I will assure you that if your attitude towards these articles remains unsatisfactory, I will not return to arbitration but instead open a user RfC first. Iff that fails to alter your behaviour, then only will I seek mediation/arbitration again. This doesn't mean others may not open a case against you on arbitration, but it won't be me unless all other avenues have been exhausted. In effect, I'm offering you a clean slate &mdash; a chance to turn around. If that doesn't work (and I hope that doesn't occur), you shouldn't expect much from me considering all that's happened. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you need to accept the results of VfD votes, John&mdash;if people vote to keep Autobiography sales and chart positions, and it appears the vote is going that way, then you have to agree that the information there stays. You claim there's some universal consensus against me, yet people vote to keep the subarticles, and we both have to respect those votes. You claim my attitude is a violation of policy. But an attitude can't be a violation of policy, can it? No, it would have to be something expressed in actions. And if it's something to be expressed in actions, then there would have to be a tangible way to stop expressing it: either to stop the actions or change them. So what is it you want me to do? I've told you I'll do whatever, within reason, but apparently there is nothing I can do, because you want to punish me for an opinion, or a belief, not for my actions, since my actions haven't violated policy. So once again, John, what shall I do to accommodate you? My offer of one revert per day still stands, but it cannot apply to all Ashlee articles, because the others aren't the source of controversy. That's a needlessly harsh restriction, the source of which is apparently nothing more than the fact that I've written those other articles as well. So the restriction can only apply to Autobiography (album). Don'y you talk to me about clean slates and turning around. I've always been going in the right direction. That direction has been one of compromise and cooperation, and I'm going further in that direction by offering self-imposed editing restrictions. Why don't you take it and work with me towards compromise on the talk page? I've told you I'm open to all kinds of concessions and proposals. Everyking 17:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The VfD vote was not on the level of detail people expect from articles; it was on whether the article is encyclopedic or not. Stop misrepresenting it. You also keep strawmanning me; I did not specifically say attitude; in addition, I recall writing attitude and actions and behaviour. And if we're going to carry out this parole, it has to be on all Ashlee Simpson-related articles, because otherwise, you will just continue creating articles whenever we trim fluff from the main article. That's not to say all of them will be unencyclopedic topics, but I think you get the point. Johnleemk | Talk 17:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * What does creating subarticles have to do with reverting? You haven't yet even touched Autobiography sales and chart positions, much less gotten into a dispute with me over it, so why should I limit myself to one revert there? Should I take that as an indication that you plan to get into a dispute over it? Everyking 17:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't plan for that; however, these things can happen. I didn't intend to get involved in La La, yet somehow I did. And while I haven't touched that article, I have discussed it on the talk page. I'm just pissed by your behaviour, so I didn't bother editing anything there since you'd revert it anyway. And the issue is not reverting; I repeat, it is your attitude of ownership and the action you take based on this attitude, whether you realise it or not. Johnleemk | Talk 18:15, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The attitude you speak of does not exist, so I cannot change it. However, I want a way out of this, so I am willing agree to change some of my actions if that will get you back to the discussion table so you won't be threatening my editing rights with arbitration. I still have a few lifetimes worth of work ahead of me on Wikipedia. So, John, I am willing to agree to one revert on Autobiography (album), Autobiography sales and chart positions, and any other subarticles from Autobiography, if in the future they are created, with the exception of the three singles articles, since I believe these are in a different class, and you yourself wanted them kept. The restriction will also not apply to the Ashlee Simpson article, The Ashlee Simpson Show, or various non-Autobiography based articles like Jessica Simpson. You must also agree to the same restriction, and the restriction will have to expire on Feb.1 unless we mutually agree to renew it. I believe that's more than fair. Everyking 18:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent; I agree. There are a few kinks to work out (such as enforcement &mdash; I'd recommend a 24 hour block just as if one were violating the 3RR if this standing order is violated), but for now, I withdraw the arbitration case. Johnleemk | Talk 06:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a matter of good faith. I'm not going to revert more than once a day, and you can take me at my word. I won't accept any threatened penalties like a 24-hour block. Everyking 13:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So then if it's violated in bad faith, I reserve the right to reopen this case. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And if you won't accept my word in good faith, then there'll be no agreement. We cannot hope to reach consensus if you don't even believe I can be trusted to respect a self-imposed restriction. Everyking 16:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, I've changed my mind. To prove my sincerity, I will accept a block of up to ten years if I violate the self-imposed revert restriction. Everyking 16:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say I would support such a drastic measure, but do note that I added the in bad faith condition above. Obvious accidental reverts shouldn't be an issue. I'm not saying I don't trust you, but like I said, I will reopen this case if I feel you're violating these conditions intentionally in bad faith. Johnleemk | Talk 17:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sign if you agree. Anything not mentioned will not be considered to apply. Everyking 19:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Tony Sidaway
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Response by Everyking

 * 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)

Rebuttal by Johnleemk

 * That's stance completely at odds with the one you were displaying on Ambi's talk page; you refused to continue constructive mediation/discussion with her, and stated you would refuse mediation with me as well if you did not get your way. I don't intend to push for a block, but you are indeed preventing constructive editing of the article which seems counter to our norms and policies. Reene attempted a rewrite that was well-received by everyone involved except you; not a trace of it is left. My rewrites have both been reverted. Dr. Zen's edits have also been reverted. You only keep edits that add to the article. Verifiable does not automatically mean a factoid is encyclopedic. Removal of material is justified on occasion. Discussion with you is proving futile; I've been involved with this whole rigmarole from the very beginning and for once I'm beginning to feel there is no more recourse. Talking just won't solve anything since all you do is stonewall. It's clear we disagree; what seems unclear to you is that nobody is agreeing with you. Dr Zen, iMeowbot, Tony, Reene, Ambi and I have all been saying the same thing to you yet you refuse to budge. Your compromises aren't working very well, and that isn't the point anyway; the point is that you continue to take an attitude of ownership over Autobiography (album) and I don't think that is in line with policy. You say you support the idea of a wiki and yet openly revert edits supported by everyone but you. Johnleemk | Talk 16:12, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * My stance on Ambi's talk page was a function of temporary insanity brought on by days of constantly having the threat of arbitration hanging over me and by her complete unwillingness to disclaim that threat. That was especially hard to deal with over Christmas. How you are supposed to get a ruling on whether I think I own Autobiography (album)? I say I don't, and you say I do. It's clear enough from the VfD debate that people do agree with me, otherwise there wouldn't be all those keep votes, would there? I want to know what you hope to accomplish. Do you intend to respect the outcome of VfD? If so, what are you still pushing for? Everyking 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent the VfD voting pattern. At least some of those keep votes are in response to your threats to leave, not an affirmation of the article's value. iMeowbot~Mw
 * Stop looking at it in terms of a zero-sum game. I don't want to accomplish anything but closure. I'm tired of this dispute spilling over everywhere and disrupting Wikipedia. The issue here is that while you may not believe you're taking an attitude of ownership to "your" articles, your actions indicate otherwise. Calton calculated that as of December 13, you had made over 80% of the edits to Autobiography alone. I believe that if anyone bothered to seriously take a look at the article, most of it is nothing but your prose, because you have reverted everyone else unless they added to the article. By taking such a stance on "your" articles and yet not others, you indicate that subconsciously, you believe the article to be yours and resent others editing it without your prior consent, believing you have some special status due to your privilege of being most learned in the field of Ashlee Simpson; indeed, you admitted as much the first time we thrashed this issue over a few months ago. I and numerous others have persisted since then in trying to change that but nothing has worked. Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * "...most of it is nothing but your prose, because you have reverted everyone else unless they added to the article." Do I have to point out the logical error here? Anyway, John, you want me punished for what you believe I believe on a subconscious level? Man, this case would really set a precedent, huh? On Wikipedia, we talk. We try to reach consensus. We work within the rules, and we try to reach a compromise acceptable to everyone. We don't edit "boldly" when we know that the edit will be extremely controversial and is almost guaranteed to lead to a revert war&mdash;we take it to talk and try to work something out. And most of all, we don't take someone to arbitration for the heinous crime of having an opinion. You didn't answer my question: what do you want? The subarticle will almost certainly survive VfD. So what are you still arguing for? Everyking 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * From Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1:
 * Absolutely it belongs to everyone, which means Hemanshu, Gentgeen and Reene can't just storm in and disregard my opinion and start trashing the article. I have no desire to keep them from contributing to the article, but they've made it quite clear that I am not to continue working on it, and I'll face blocking if I do. Which is heinous on three levels: first, because I'm an editor like anyone else, with equal rights; secondly, because I wrote virtually the entire article myself, and so excluding my opinion is insane; and thirdly, because I'm more than likely the only one among them who is knowledgeable enough to write a proper article on this subject.
 * Community consensus is against you; you have refused to accept it. Fact it, how many people disagree with you on the article? I'm not talking about the articles on VfD; forget about them. I'm talking about Autobiography (album). By my (and your) count, the people who have disagreed with you are: Me, Calton, Reene, Dr Zen, Tony Sidaway, Ambi, iMeowbot, Hemanshu and Gentgeen. How many have taken your side? One &mdash; you. (This list of editors is compiled of those who have tried discussing this with you on Talk:Autobiography (album) at one point or another.) This is precisely why the 3RR exists &mdash; if more people are reverting your side, then more likely than not, your side is the one going against community consensus. The reason why the article consists of your writing is because we've been polite enough not to revert it. Our edits are not controversial because they go against consensus; they are controversial because they go against your opinion, and you make a gigantic fuss about it. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So you're telling me I can't have my opinion just because a few deletionists are against me? Majority rules? I'm totally open to compromise, and in fact I'm the only one who has taken the initiative to propose&mdash;and implement&mdash;compromises. But you seem to think it's all or nothing. Everyking 17:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A few deletionists? While Ambi and I may be members of the ADW, both of us voted keep on La La; Tony disavows that he is a deletionist (although he voted delete on La La); Dr Zen is an obvious inclusionist (indeed, he has said he thinks Ambi's views are a compilation of all that is wrong with Wikipedia). None of us are radical deletionists like Geogre or RickK and even they have their limits. There can be no compromise on a wiki concept; your views are equal to those of other editors, not more or less. If the community as a whole rules against you, tough luck. Johnleemk | Talk 17:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Getting a little unreadable; shift back. Peter O. (Talk, automation script) 18:48, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)''
 * John, just stop it and tell me what you want from me. I'll accept anything short of hard-line, uncompromising deletionism. Everyking 17:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear? I've already given you an example on your talk page of why I'm seeking arbitration. What I "want" shouldn't be hard to figure out: Stop acting as if you have a right to keep "your" article as you like it just because you know more about this subject than others. Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A) I don't act that way; B) even if I did, what sort of tangible actions would I take to demonstrate that had done what you ask? Everyking 18:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Stop reverting people when they "remove" information from "your" article. In truth, replacing a thousand instances of "On week X, the album dropped to position Y according to Z" with "The album then continued to fall in the charts" is not removing information but summarising it (if the reader desires more information, an external link can be provided). Johnleemk | Talk 18:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * ...so I have to give in completely? Why can't we go to talk and work out a compromise? Everyking 18:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you continually make large-scale reverts even if you take issue with only one or two things in an edit. Furthermore, you continue this despite the fact that community consensus exist for the rewrites. So perhaps my request back there was slightly inaccurate; stop reverting edits where it's clear there is community consensus. Johnleemk | Talk 18:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous! There is no consensus, or we'd all be getting along. You're telling me I'm out of the discussion, I'm not allowed to have input anymore? I think I had better stop talking now before I violate a policy. Everyking 18:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The consensus is that most of your reverts were unjustified; Reene's version was well-received, yet you reverted it. You have reverted most (if not all) of my and Dr Zen's recent edits. We were all doing the same thing &mdash; trimming the article. And let me remind you, that list above is generated merely from those involved in the talk page discussions. If you count the votes on the VfDs and FACs, you get two or three supporters at the most (voting "keep" does not constitute a vote of support for keeping your revision of the article); on the other hand, many more have expressed support for trimming the article. Your opinion counts, but compared to the opinions of those who have been asked, it is apparent that in this case you are sheerly outnumbered. You would probably be more outnumbered if not for the fact that your jealous guarding of "your" articles scared people away; Calton has some nice statistics for you if you'd care to see them. Johnleemk | Talk 18:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I note also that your "temporary insanity" lasted until as recently as 11:23 UTC today. Johnleemk | Talk 16:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's ongoing. Everyking 16:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Dr Zen
I ask the arbitrators to refuse this case. Some editors do have a problem with James but they have by no means exhausted the dispute resolution process. This escalation serves nothing and I want nothing to do with it. I deplore the use of RfAr to settle scores. There is no urgency about dealing with James. He's not a "problem user" as such. I am willing to comment on an RfC if mediation with James fails but this is too much. This is beginning to look like a campaign and I want no part of that.Dr Zen 22:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * FYI, Dr Zen, Everyking has explicitly rejected mediation, and demanded that this be taken to arbitration. I'd have been entirely happy to mediate the issue first, as would Johnleemk, but it was declined. Ambi 00:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd be perfectly happy withdrawing from it altogether. How would you like it if I quit editing and just stated my positions on the talk page, and then you would be responsible for implementing whatever I proposed? Would you agree to that? I think that would be a nice demonstration of neutrality and good faith from someone who's about to become an arbitrator, and since you feel I should banned from the article anyway, it would be in line with your wishes. Everyking 00:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth I agree that it's extremely premature. At least this section has brought us together and focused our thoughts.  Perhaps we should both concentrate on getting the other parties to the dispute to agree that RfC is a more appropriate venue. I don't want to "punish" anybody, I just want to see some meaningful editing applied to Autobiography (album), at least to the extent that it stop spawning a new subarticle every couple of weeks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Tony, the problem is that to you, meaningful editing means deleting a great deal of content.

Again with the false accusations! Just give one example of an edit I have ever performed on an article you have been involved in that amounted to "deleting a great deal of content."


 * As far as I know, your whole purpose in editing the article is to remove things that you consider trivia. Is that not correct? Everyking 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Now, I'm willing to consider cases of content being genuinely trivial, and I will stick to one revert per day if you and John do as well, but for your part I'd like you to agree, at least in principle, that subarticles would be a good thing if there was enough important content to go in them. Obviously you and I disagree on what's important, but can we start by agreeing on this in principle? Everyking 23:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have already told you that, having reverted once a few days ago, I will never revert that article again except in the case of simple vandalism (ie someone types something like ASHLEE IS A LUZER and I revert it). Subarticles? Maybe on those singles that go platinum. But I could not stop you because it is extremely difficult to get consensus to delete a Wikipedia article once created unless it contains absolute gibberish. I object to trivia on esthetic grounds, but perhaps my objections are, as some wikipedians assure me, merely a hangover from paper encyclopedias. Having encountered more than my fair share of articles about minor characters in anime and video games during my maintenance activities, which inevitably kept me from dealing with more useful articles, I do not share their optimism about the capacity of an encyclopedia run on the goodwill of this flesh and this bone. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * All right, so we can agree that I can create subarticles if necessary and that won't lead to anything like a breakoff of discussion or an accusation of bad faith/deception/stubborness. So if we have that settled, I think dispute resolution from here should be comparatively easy. If there's anything that gets too detailed for you, we can talk about moving the content to a subarticle, and then we'll both be satisfied, right? The main article still gets to be the way you want it, more or less, but I get to keep the detail I consider important in subarticles per summary style. That just leaves general questions of rewording what you call verbosity and such, and I think if we put our minds to it those problems should be fairly easy to resolve. They aren't so hotly controversial as the whole inclusion/deletion question. Everyking 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comment by iMeowbot
That's nice. I just added a fact to La La. Everyking reverted it. I reinstated the addition, and Everyking then changed the entry to add inaccuracies to make it "his own." I've been refraining from making numerous needed corrections to the Simpson articles, having seen the habitual revert behavior, and that's really quite disturbing. It goes entirely against the whole purpose of the wiki environment. iMeowbot~Mw 18:25, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This is so bizarre I don't even know what to say. You wrote that it was announced in November that a CD single would be released in January. Where is this announcement? Why haven't I seen it? I would love to include such information if it existed, but there's no evidence of it. All I could find was that the CD single is planned for UK release in late January, and I added that to the article. What is the complaint here? That I went and expanded and corrected what you wrote? Is that not the wiki process? Everyking 18:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It shows up as available for order to retailers, that's about all the release date announcement that discs typically get. Consumers can find out very soon afterward by seeing what is available for order as an upcoming release. Sometimes a date is given, sometimes not.
 * Furthermore, you did not expand and correct. You reverted it.  Then after I re-added, you inserted incorrect information (specifically, that a single was being aired on US radio, when no such single exists yet). Fortunately, you at least managed to get the Vivendi division correct in your expansion. iMeowbot~Mw

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * I told you not to revert them. Reverting is not compromise. Johnleemk | Talk 19:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Clarification requested
I request that the arbitrators who decided on this case clarify Everyking's revert restriction. Everyking has reverted Ashlee Simpson material in articles which are not directly related to Ashlee Simpson, and says that the revert restriction applied by the decision of this case does not apply to him there, because the article itself is not directly related to Ashlee Simpson. Example:. See discussion: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think it's pretty obvious what the spirit of the decision is, but Everyking disagrees. silsor 10:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion on: . In essence, what the ArbCom actually said is clear. However, there is dispute over whether the ArbCom actually meant to say what they did, or whether they wished to give Everyking a wider parole. The parole relates to "reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson". Some claim that instead the ArbCom meant the parole to relate to "reverting material relating to Ashlee Simpson". Kind regards, jguk 10:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * [w]hat the ArbCom actually said is clear is a priori false and begging the question of the discussion, and you manage to contradict yourself almost immediately: what they said is clear, but you don't know that they said what they meant to say? Are you arguing for its own sake, or do you actually believe this nonsense? --Calton 12:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd like some further clarification: should the ruling be viewed as applying to anonymous editors? As in, am I prohibited from reverting them as well? Everyking 06:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * What loophole are you looking for now? What part of "except in cases of obvious vandalism" was unclear? --Calton 07:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyking, if you seriously want to request clarification on whether you can revert non-vandalism Ashlee edits by anonymous users, please do as I did and put a brief request on the WP:RfA page itself. I think the answer will be virtually identical to Calton's: no reverts at all except in cases of obvious vandalism.  Unlike the earlier request, there isn't even any room for misunderstanding on this score. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I find it hard to believe that the ArbCom really wants to give anons more rights than me. Especially when the anon is him(her)self reverting back to a POV version. Everyking 11:03, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering they give non-admins more rights than you, I see no reason to doubt that. This is far more clearer than the very ambiguous ruling relating to articles: you can't revert any Ashlee-related material, regardless of author. If it's not outright vandalism, ask somebody else to revert. Just as you would once you reached the 3RR limit. Then again, perhaps that's exactly what you're doing. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyking - if it meant "except anons", it would say "except anons". It doesn't - David Gerard 23:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You guys already changed your meaning once, though, so I figure everything's flexible. Everyking 00:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There was a clarification, not a change of meaning. I have to say I find it very tiring to see this constant gaming of the system and attempts to wriggle out of constraints imposed because of consistent problems which could not be resolved by any lesser means.  I really suggest you re-read all the discussion surrounding the arbitration case and try to understand where your behaviour is going beyond the mark.  If you carry on with this sort of behaviour then surely greater sanctions will eventually have to be applied, and I'm sure no-one really wants that. Worldtraveller 01:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The only reason the matter couldn't be resolved by lesser means is that you and a few others were not open to compromise and dispute resolution. Everyking 01:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think Everyking re-reading the discussion or decision will make the slightest bit of difference at this point. Everyking either believes himself to be completely blameless (either because he's completely right or because any unequivocal bad behavior was provoked and therefore somebody else's fault -- note the above posting, where despite the reams of evidence of Everyking refusing/reverting any and all changes not personally approved by him, it's other people's fault for not "compromising") or he already knows he's wrong but doesn't care. I don't see any sudden epiphany on his part, so counting on him to keep himself within consensus limits is probably futile; rather, I see a future of boundary-testing, system-gaming, and working-the-refs until (I'll bet he hopes) everyone gives up, burns out, or is intimidated into complying with his demands. --Calton 01:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See, you're just assuming that I'm wrong and you're right. I, on the other hand, give plenty of credit to the other side and I'm always willing to recognize the possibility of error on my part. When I've been wrong about anything, not only have I conceded the point, I have usually taken the initiative and fixed it myself. At other times I have believed myself to be right but have acknowledged the general feeling and made concessions accordingly. Even before the controversy blew up on a large scale, I was already addressing others criticisms&mdash;sometimes preemptively!&mdash;whether I agreed with them or not; for example, I removed a great deal of minor detail from the article during its first FAC nomination to address the criticism that it was dwelling on trivia. At the time I did so against my better judgment, but with time I have come to believe that much of that minor detail was indeed superfluous. Everyking 03:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See, you're just assuming that I'm wrong and you're right. What the hell is that supposed to mean? That's a statement devoid of any rebuttable content whatsoever. Wrong about anything associated with Ashlee Simpson? Wrong about your self-serving interpretation of Wikipedia policy and ArbCom rulings? Wrong about any and all disputes you've engaged in over your behavior? What is this thing I'm supposed to assume you're "wrong" about, anyways?


 * Nothing I wrote in my posting above -- not one single word -- says or is meant to assume you're wrong: it says that you believe that you are never wrong.


 * One thing you are certainly wrong about is that you ...give plenty of credit to the other side and [am] always willing to recognize the possibility of error...: that is flat-out untrue (no matter how many times you float that statement) as evinced by the near-universal tone of editors writing on several Talk pages, an RFC, and two iterations of the RfAr, not to mention your consistent self-righteous anger whenever you're blocked for violating your parole. --Calton 13:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * See, you're just assuming that I'm wrong and you're right. Calton maybe, but I've certainly found you to be in the right a few times, notably on the song articles and in your protest of Hemanshu's blocking. Since then you've just stonewalled more and more, though. It seems to me that as this dispute has progressed, you've continued working against consensus just because you feel everyone else has. If you gain the moral high ground, your opponents have nothing to use against you. As long as you try to work against the community and its mechanisms just because you feel it is wrong, you will never be respected by more than a tiny minority. Saying you refuse to adhere to a ruling's spirit because you disagree with it is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
 * I, on the other hand, give plenty of credit to the other side and I'm always willing to recognize the possibility of error on my part. I find it hard to believe you can say "always" with a straight face. Always outside Ashlee material? Yes. If you said sometimes or occasionally, you might sound credible, but it requires a complete suspension of one's logic mechanisms to believe you have "always" behaved in such a manner in this dispute. Try reviewing the evidence page again, please.
 * When I've been wrong about anything, not only have I conceded the point, I have usually taken the initiative and fixed it myself. Disputable, but since you said "usually", it's not out of the realm of possibility. I'll grant that you have taken efforts to mend ties after your constant personal attacks against Reene (although it apparently did nothing to stop her from leaving Wikipedia). I've never seen you stop reverting except when forced to by rules or some other outside force. Just because you are right does not mean you are entitled to wanton reverting.
 * At other times I have believed myself to be right but have acknowledged the general feeling and made concessions accordingly. Quite difficult to believe considering how many times you have reverted others. Please look at the history page of any of these articles you've been heavily involved in. If you were to replace your name with mine, what would you think of me? Do you believe comments like "i'll revert you till doomsday" or three consecutive reverts daily against different people reflect the statement you have just made?
 * Even before the controversy blew up on a large scale, I was already addressing others criticisms&mdash;sometimes preemptively!&mdash;whether I agreed with them or not; for example, I removed a great deal of minor detail from the article during its first FAC nomination to address the criticism that it was dwelling on trivia. At the time I did so against my better judgment, but with time I have come to believe that much of that minor detail was indeed superfluous. That is good, but this is not a content dispute; this is a behavioural dispute, and the issue is that you have taken the lackadaisical attitude of entitlement to three reverts when involved in a dispute, simply because you know more about the topic than anybody else. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute. Nothing to do with behavior. Everyking 08:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This decision has nothing to do with content and everything to do with behavior. Focusing in the way you did on any topic would produce the same result. Never was there any discussion among the Arbitrators regarding Ashlee Simpson Fred Bauder 08:42, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute that went to arbitration because some people were insisting it was behavior-related, as a way to end the content dispute. Once there, I don't doubt that the arbitrators treated it as if it was behavior-related. Everyking 08:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverting practically everyone who makes a major edit to an article is most definitely not a content dispute. A content dispute is a disagreement over content. As long as the resolution of the dispute does not violate policy, it is fine. But once a violation of policy occurs, it is no longer just a content but behavioural dispute as well. The "content dispute" argument sounds like one a POV warrior would use to get out of the consequences of constant POV editing. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So what policy did I violate? Everyking 10:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ownership_of_articles --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's incredibly subjective. I flatly deny that I own or attempt to own any articles and I believe the edit histories back me up on this. So think of another policy I violated. Everyking 12:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask, and ye shall receive:


 * Some statistics from the Autobiography album article:


 * As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been 554 edits (counting the original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size. The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average of just under 4 edits per day...


 * Of the 554 edits, 496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking.


 * Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single number at 13 edits.


 * Of those 56 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at least four violations of the 3-revert rule (including an astonishing 8 reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).


 * So, what are those edit histories supposed to show, again? --Calton 13:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My statement is based on the fact that ArbCom affirmed this policy as a principle of their investigation and that they found as a fact that you had "aggressively defended" your edits and "engaged in edit warring with respect to them", saying "i'll revert you till doomsday". If you think you didn't breach that policy, feel free to petition ArbCom for clarification. Remember that you also have the option of appeal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR. You don't seem to believe you have ever been in the wrong.  Once again, if you really don't understand why the whole arbitration and revert parole happened, you need to carefully read all the attendant discussion.  You have annoyed people a great deal, and continue to do so.  Do you want to continue annoying people?  If so, carry on, but expect further sanctions I would think.  If not, try to understand what aspects of your behaviour are problematic and change them. Worldtraveller 12:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never violated it, except for a few times early in the game. Everyking 12:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ha, good one - so only violating a policy a few times is OK, and doesn't mean this is a dispute about behaviour? Worldtraveller 14:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See this finding of fact in your case: Everyking's liberal view of the three-revert rule. Everyking has interpreted the three-revert rule in a liberal way and has aggressively engaged in editing which has resulted in his being blocked for violation of it . Passed 8-0. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you haven't answered the questions I posed to you recently beyond a sentence about how it's a content dispute so the whole thing is moot. Regardless, my questions stand. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)