Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

"4) Everyking has an intense interest in Ashlee Simpson and the details of her life and work and has extensively edited articles which relate to her."


 * How can anybody rule on my own thoughts? Extensively edited, OK, but how can there a be a ruling about whether I have an "intense interest" in anything? Everyking 13:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. It is notoriously difficult to prove state of mind. For example, suppose that 10 witnesses see a defendent fire a gun and a victim dies of the wound. The witnesses can testify that the defendent said certain things, had a certain expression on their face and carefully aimed the gun, but the intent to kill can only be implied. So the rule has developed that a person intends the usual consequences of their actions. In your case you have spent a lot of effort editing articles which relate to Ashlee Simpson. One can reasonably suppose you are interested in the subject. The number of edits and their nature go to establish the modifying "intensely". Fred Bauder 13:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly you have a point, but I fail to see why the ArbCom would need to speculate on the matter. Wouldn't it be sufficient to just say I extensively edited the articles? (In the past tense, mind you, since I have now stopped editing them.) Everyking 13:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, it seems to me that my view of the 3RR would be described as conservative, not liberal. A revert is a revert; partially adding back a sentence or a paragraph is not a revert. If one believed that it was a revert, wouldn't that be the liberal view: that lots of things could be reverts, depending on individual interpretation? Everyking 13:17, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, one could read that either way. In the way I used it a conservative view would be one that decided close questions by adopting the options which minimized reversions. Fred Bauder 13:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand David's proposal. I haven't been using rollback on the Ashlee articles. I think once, at the very beginning of the dispute in November, I used rollback against Reene because she had gone and removed a big chunk of the article with hardly any explanation. After I saw it was developing into a real content dispute, I never used rollback again. So I don't see the point. And I don't see why I should be limited to one edit on Ashlee articles, either. I don't really plan on continuing to actively edit Ashlee articles in the future, but if I add a little factual update or something, as I will probably continue to do on occasion, why shouldn't I be allowed to go back and fix one of my own typos or improve my wording? Everyking 01:04, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. The title "Failure to comply with block" does not match what's being voted on in point 3: "Blocked for 24 hours for violations of the 3 revert rule, Everyking continued to edit using the rollback feature available to him as a Wikipedia administrator." I am of the understanding that sysop functions are left available to blocked admins for an intended purpose and that reverting vandalism in the course of RC patrol is in no way a "failure to comply with block". Failure to comply with the block would be to either unblock myself and go on editing, start a sockpuppet account, or start rolling back things that were not necessarily vandalism. I did none of those things. I was simply looking for a way to continue contributing in a useful way while blocked, and I don't think there's anything prohibiting that. Everyking 03:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. People vote but they don't consider what I'm saying here. I'm already under a self-imposed ban on reverts on Ashlee articles. I've also committed myself to staying out of controversy on Ashlee articles, so if I encounter a disagreement I am pledged to simply concede the matter, although of course someone else could take up my position instead. I recognize that I have lost the content dispute and I am not continuing to fight that battle. I fail to see why anything more is necessary. Why not just say that if I break my own pledge (which I will spell out in very clear terms if this is accepted), then I am subject to certain penalties? The fact that losing my admin powers, which were given to me by a very large majority of voters last May (one dissenter, 20 or so supports), is being considered is almost offensive to me. I have not abused my admin rights at all. How can that be considered if my use of sysop abilities is not in question? Please take what I'm saying seriously and reply to me. Everyking 08:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have in fact placed a self-imposed ban on editing Ashlee articles, then you will not be bitten by this injunction. --mav 07:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't say editing. I said reverting or engaging in disputes involving any kind of edit warring. Everyking 07:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself (Wouldn't it be sufficient to just say I extensively edited the articles? (In the past tense, mind you, since I have now stopped editing them.) Everyking 13:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) - from above), only 42 hours later. --Calton 00:51, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please don't limit me to one edit on Ashlee articles per day. That is unjust. You can read my pledge above. How would it be fair to block me for fixing two typos in 24 hours, or adding two uncontroversial updates? Ban me from reverting them, that's fine. Ban me from making partial reverts too, that's fine. I have already pledged not to do either of those things, so I don't understand why a punitive measure would be necessary, but do that if you wish. But please don't limit my ability to edit the articles in a normal and uncontroversial way. I don't believe I could, as a person with a certain level of dignity, accept being blocked for fixing two typos in 24 hours without leaving the project. Everyking 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You make convincing arguments; I've changed my vote accordingly. Neutralitytalk 01:51, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still are plenty more articles to edit other than this one. --mav 07:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously. But that isn't the point. Everyking 07:07, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abuses
I think what is needed is something to address the fact that Everyking has been abusing other people who edit "his" articles, calling them vandals. That he reverts constantly is bad enough, but we discussed these matters extensively on the talk. The problem is Everyking abused us excessively. I can live with being reverted on a non-essential article like this (which is why I never bothered reverting Everyking), but I cannot live with being addressed as a vandal so liberally as Everyking has done to Reene. Johnleemk | Talk 05:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * John is apparently referring to one comment in November which I have since apologized for. Also, John himself has called me a "prick" and an "asshole", and I recall at least one profanity-filled rant against me from Reene, so this seems rather hypocritical. Everyking 06:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted if you were to point me to this "profanity-filled rant" that I don't recall making in the slightest. Are you by chance referring to me telling you to "pick an edit and start discussing or shut up and stop bitching"? Hardly a "rant", and it's not even a personal attack, though that is the closest I ever came to making one. →Reene✏ 17:10, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * "The difference being that is my personal journal, whereas you are nothing but a petty, immature vandal throwing a hissy fit because the article got protected on a version that wasn't by you (yes, I saw you screaming on Snowspinner's talk page). You are damned right I will not consider anything further from you after that kind of bullshit. I'm going to wait for the Mediation committee to intervene with something acceptable, and if they don't/can't, I'm going straight to Arbitration. I'm tired of this shit from you. You're a sysop and (I assume) an adult, start acting like one. Reene (リニ) 09:18, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)"


 * Ah, the comment I made after you vandalized my journal under the veil of anonymity (which didn't quite work out for you). Yes, goodness forbid I call something like that "bullshit", I was waaay out of line. I was quite understandably pissed off at the time. Of course, I assume this doesn't cancel out all of the times you called me a vandal and a troll and accused me of vandalizing your precious articles- prior to that comment, no less. At least not in the eyes of the arbcom. Speaking of which, I would very much like to see the arbcom acknowledge at least some of the personal attacks Everyking has made. They're all there on the evidence page with diffs. →Reene✏ 17:31, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * What I've said was a lot milder than that, and besides, I'm sorry for it. You, on the other hand, have not apologized to me for anything. Everyking 17:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually I remember an occasion in late November when Reene did apologise to you, and I don't remember seeing any apologies from you. I can't be bothered finding diffs for evidence, perhaps you can find the diff for evidence when you apologised to Reene? - Drstuey 09:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's already been done, near the bottom of the page. Everyking 09:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, calling another user a troll is a lot milder. Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Your definition of "milder" differs greatly from mine, then. Just because I included mild profanity when I expressed outrage at your behavior does not make my single comment worse by default than many made by you (on a much more personal level may I add). I have apologised for comments directed at you made in frustration (such as the one I quoted above), and I also do not believe you are truly sorry, nor do I believe you would not engage in such attacks again if you felt you could get away with it. The second you followed me off of Wikipedia to drop a stinking proverbial turd in my lap was the second I lost all good faith in you as an editor and as a human being. →Reene✏ 17:59, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Dittoed; something should be mentioned about the personal attacks. Also, I think Everyking should at least be made to reapply for adminship. Deadminning of course would be drastic, but considering Everyking's behaviour, I think it would not be a bad idea to at least ask the community, "Is this user still worthy of your trust?" It is true Everyking has not abused his admin powers more than a couple of times during this dispute, but he has abused the community's trust. Admins are meant to be exemplary users (should this be a finding of fact?). Is this exemplary behaviour? At the very least, let's ask the community to decide again. Yes, adminship should be no big deal; I'm a big proponent of this ideal. I believe all users in upright standing who have been here for a while should be admins. However, is Everyking in upright standing? I'm aware of his work in things outside Ashlee Simpson. But still, atrocious behaviour should not be tolerated. At least ask the community to decide again. No admin should be the subject of an RfC certified by a dozen people and endorsed by a dozen more. Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have not abused admin powers, period, and besides that, it would be entirely unfair to make me reapply at the present time, when passions are still running high. You have effectively won, John; why do you keep going on the attack again and again? It's as if nothing is good enough. Everyking 17:54, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of who wins; it's a question of setting precedent. You must realise that although this dispute is petty, if such a thing happened on George W. Bush, the trolls could point to this case for precedent. Anyway, I did not say when I wanted this readminship vote to take place. A month from the closure of this case sounds good to me. Johnleemk | Talk 18:09, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * John, I've promised not to revert again or engage in any controversy. Quit trying to exploit the situation. Everyking 18:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That does not release you from responsibility (and possibly punishment) for your actions. Nobody is talking about simply de-sysopping you, we merely wish to see the issue of your adminship go back to the community for a decision. There even seems to be general agreement that this shouldn't happen right away but some time after this issue is closed. Why is this a big deal and why are you calling it "exploiting the situation" when it is nothing of the sort? →Reene✏ 18:22, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Because I have not abused admin powers at all, therefore it is not an issue. Everyking 18:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you have nothing to fear from reapplying for adminship. An admin who is the subject of an RfC with two dozen supporters and two opposers and an RFAr imposing severe sanctions should at least be made to reapply after the passions have cooled. If there was abuse of admin power, then perhaps deadmining straight away would be justified (as was done with 172, IIRC), but if there has been none, the subject of the RFA should have nothing to fear from reapplying. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * With adminship comes a level of trust from those of us mere norms&mdash;you have sullied that trust by your previous actions. If you were a fine upstanding member of a community and a police officer, but decided to rob a supermarket, should the community then continue to trust you as a police officer, never mind a community member? &mdash;Neuropedia 00:18, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

May I request that there be some sort of time limit for any penalties the ArbCom imposes against me? I think that if I edit Ashlee articles uncontroversially for a while, then that should be sufficient to have any restrictions removed. It seems to me anything ought to either have a time limit, or at least a date at which the ArbCom will promise to reconsider my case and lift the restrictions if they consider my behavior to have improved. Everyking 10:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My current understanding is that we can impose no ban or other remedy for longer than one year. Fred Bauder 15:08, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

This can surely be proof enough of Everyking's utter lack of respect for this community. There should be no halfway-house with this&mdash;Everyking should IMHO be banned from editing every and all Ashlee Simpson articles, period. The attempt above at conciliation ("if I edit Ashlee articles uncontroversially for a while") is offensive, and implies that his behaviour over the last couple of months will continue once this all blows over and is forgotten about by ArbCom. The reapplication for adminship doesn't look like it will be part of the final decision; how disappointing, as I doubt I will ever see trust in anything Everyking writes or edits. &mdash;Neuropedia 00:18, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Conti's opinion
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)


 * Good. Then you shouldn't mind at all if an enforcable "no reversions" clause passes, should you? --Calton 21:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

In the future I suggest that when arbitrators are recommending reapplication for adminship as a remedy, that it not take effect until a set period of time after the case closes, for example a month in this case. silsor 22:47, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Summary of my/our issues with some of these proposed decisions
I and the other users involved in this dispute would appreciate it that something should be done about these gripes; if the arbcom feels Everyking should reapply after two months instead, that's fine with me too, but I feel it's not sufficient to avoid mentioning Everyking's numerous personal attacks (contrary to what he said above, he has called Reene a vandal and troll more than once); you can mention he apologised for them too, if that's necessary.
 * 1) No mention has been made in the findings of facts about personal attacks;
 * 2) Everyking should be made to reapply for adminship a month after the closure of this case (reasoning and counterpoints to possible responses can be found above and below);
 * 3) To the best of my knowledge, there has been no attempt to probe Everyking's behaviour towards other users outside Wikipedia (Mackensen informed the IRC channel that he was harassed by email, and it's common knowledge Everyking posted vulgarities on Reene's LiveJournal).

Likewise, Everyking should be made to reapply for adminship eventually; admins are exemplary users, and exemplary users do not engage in personal attacks, harass users outside Wikipedia, violate the 3RR excessively, become the subject of an RfC certified by 11 users and endorsed by 14 others, nor be the subject of an arbitration case with strong penalties. Individually, each of these makes a weak case for asking Everyking to reapply for adminship. Collectively, I don't see how we shouldn't ask of him to do so after the passions cool. Yes, he did not abuse his admin powers, but abuse of admin powers should be a case for straight-away deadminning. Violation of community norms, policies and guidelines, however, should at least merit a reexamination of Everyking's status as an exemplary user.

And last but not least, could the committee at least make some attempt to investigate Everyking's harassment of Mackensen and Reene? This is slightly harder to justify, but still, a Wikipedia user who harasses his fellow brethren outside Wikipedia merits at least an investigation. Johnleemk | Talk 05:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The one thing that led to the Request for Comment and this Request for Arbitration was Everyking's contempt for other users. I see nothing in Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision that addresses this. silsor 05:35, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence of personal attacks can be found at Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Evidence, in particular from November 27 to 30, and at Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Evidence. I have also presented in my evidence section certain edits and edit summaries which may or may not be characterised as personal attacks, but definitely show contempt for the work of others:, , , . Also, do note Everyking unblocked himself once, which may be construed as an abuse of admin power; however, I feel the above is enough to at least ask him to reapply for adminship once this whole mess blows over. Johnleemk | Talk 05:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A) I did not harass Mackensen. I'm appalled that he would claim such a thing. He blocked me, and he e-mailed me about it, and I replied rather bitterly and angrily, as I think is fairly understandable under the circumstances. Certainly I would never use profanity against another user on Wikipedia (as Reene and John have both done to me), but I feel that I can talk freely in private e-mails, especially when the other person is the one who initiated the conversation.

B) Accusations of personal attacks here are absolutely absurd. John called me an "asshole" and a "prick", and has never apologized for that, whereas I called Reene a troll once and accused her of vandalizing the article once or twice, accusations for which I am sorry and for which I have previously apologized on several occasions. Everyking 06:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I opened the conversation, yes, because I felt it was a kind gesture to inform you as to why I'd blocked you. You responded by cussing me out, and accusing me of being a member of a cabal out to wreck the Ashlee Simpson articles, if not the entire Wikipedia. You refused to assume good faith throughout. Perhaps I shouldn't have been so taken aback, yet I was. Mackensen (talk) 06:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I accused you of being part of an IRC group that was looking for something to pin on me and block me for. I didn't say "cabal", I didn't accuse you of trying to wreck the articles (well...I might have, recalling my state of mind at the time, but I don't think so), and I have no idea if you actually go on IRC; it was an assumption, and probably not a terribly inaccurate one. I apologize for the language, but I consider a point of personal honor that one does not go spreading the contents of private e-mails around, and so I just assumed whatever I said would not be somehow held against me. Everyking 06:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You didn't think the contents of the e-mails would be made public and therefor being abusive (as long as you're not using bad language) is ok? --fvw *  06:34, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Well, what about what Mackensen did to me, isn't that a form of abuse? And that had a practical effect on me; it wasn't just words. But anyway, sure, if we were all pure as driven snow we wouldn't ever say unkind things to each other no matter how much the other person deserved it. In that sense, yes, I'm sorry for being impolite. Everyking 06:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Right, so if I murder someone and then you do the same thing, and I get off the hook, should you? If you feel this is unfair, haul me in front of the arbcom. Johnleemk | Talk 06:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Ditto Johnleemk's remark. Not only that, but again, an apology doesn't release you from responsibility for your actions. By the way, you called me a troll twice and asked someone to block me for vandalism another time. This, of course, is without taking into consideration all of the other times you called my writing vandalism, trash, destructive, etc...Which is far more hurtful than you probably realize. That said, I still don't think your apology is sincere in the slightest, nor do I think you feel any remorse whatsoever. Your "apology" is a cop-out. It's a way of distancing yourself from and sweeping away your mistakes. But people don't forget so easily, and I hope the arbcom doesn't buy your excuses and attempts to obtain a metaphorical get-out-of-policy-free card. →Reene✉ 06:38, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * In a community of people who practice forgiveness and good faith, yes, an apology coupled with refraining to do the same thing in the future should release a person from responsibility for past actions. Everyking 06:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That assumes your apologies have been sincere and freely given, and assumes that good faith is infinite. --Calton 07:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the above assertion that the issues with Everyking's editing have not been fully addressed.

Everyking may well have apologized for comments made within Wikipedia, but I haven't found any apology (and if there is one, consider this paragraph retracted) for the abrasive comments Everyking made on Reene's LiveJournal.

In addition, Everyking has shown that through single reverts in a day, he has restored "his" content to the article, so I don't think that a restriction to one revert is enough. Everyking has admirably stated that he will not revert at all on Ashlee Simpson-related articles, but that should be something which is enforceable, in order to ensure that it remains that way. - Vague | Rant 06:20, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine then. If it will reassure individuals such as yourself, then I will consent to a punitive measure such as a revert limitation without objection. However, I have no plans to revert at all; for all I care the ArbCom could allow me no reverts on those disputed articles at all, because I don't plan on doing it. I did apologize for my comments on Reene's journal, I'm almost certain of it; I'll go and see if I can find it. Everyking 06:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, you mischaracterize the revert limitation as punitive. It is no such thing: it is intended as a limitation of abusive behavior. --Calton 07:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with johnleemk, I'd like to see some more attention being payed to the rude behaviour which has poisoned what is supposed to be a friendly and collaborative atmosphere, which imho is more important than content disputes (mind you, for resolving his methods of content dispute handling one-edit-a-day seems reasonable to me. Any edits can be batched and added the next day, 24 hours lag shouldn't be a problem, wikipedia isn't a news site). Reapplying for adminship might not be a bad idea either (but I'd sort of like to see that happening for all admins periodicly). --fvw *  06:22, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was rude. I certainly wasn't the only one. However, I am the only one who has apologized for it. Everyking 06:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, here is what I said on December 7, including an apology to Reene for the journal stuff:

"Now that the article has been unprotected, I think it's a good time to start fresh. For my part, I want to apologize to Reene for calling her a troll and a vandal at various points, and for any kind of poor attitude I've displayed. She need not apologize for the nasty things she has said about me and to me; I have no problem with any of that, I am completely past it. I also want to apologize for rudely commenting in her journal; she need not apologize to me for the things she wrote that provoked those responses, which I shall not repeat here. I can forgive and forget. I hope the revised version I've added, with a fair amount of new info, will be acceptable to everyone, including Reene. Personally, I think this article is nearing featured quality. If Reene wants to summarize info, I will be happy to discuss how best to summarize it here on talk; if she wants to remove information, that might be OK as well, provided it can be convincingly argued that said information is trivial and non-notable. Everyking 19:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)"


 * You wrote, for which I have previously apologized on several occasions. Care to provide the several other occasions?


 * she need not apologize to me for the things she wrote that provoked those responses. Ah, blaming the victim, always a good start to a sincere apology. It should be noted that Everyking's apologies seem consistently to follow this form: grudgingly given with built-in excuses (such as, from this section, I apologize for the language, but I consider a point of personal honor that one does not go spreading the contents of private e-mails around and Well, what about what Mackensen did to me, isn't that a form of abuse?). Nothing ever is, ultimately, Everyking's fault: it's all those people out to get him who are provoking him. --Calton 07:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, Calton. I don't have anything to say. There's no use, because nothing would be good enough. Others can make up their own minds. Everyking 07:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong. I don't know whether it's a clinical or ethical problem with you, but you constantly mischaracterize, distort, or interpret hyperbolically any disagreement with you to deflect any blame or responsibility for your actions. What you could do is keep to the intent of your promises and not hunt for loopholes. What you could do is sincerely -- and without excuses -- apologize for abusive language and behavior. What you could do is presume the good faith you are constantly demanding of others, instead of your default paranoia that any and all disagreements -- be they about other people's edits to articles, the motivations for your reverts/changes, opinions of your admin actions, and characterizations of your attitude -- have evil intent.
 * You are in a hole of your own making, which you have not only dug, but which you dug with a steam shovel. The sooner you recognize that and stop digging, the sooner you can regain the good faith you've squandered away the last few months. --Calton 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My feelings on the proposed decision
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 | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 07:06, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with everything Blankfaze has said. Ambi 10:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;<b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 07:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't believe me when I say I will not revert again? Everyking 07:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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). <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 07:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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&mdash;and I don't claim I behaved well&mdash;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)


 * 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. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 07:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I simply do not insist on that. I have nothing more to say about that. Everyking 07:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The restrictions Everyking has offered to make voluntarily are good, but those restrictions need to be backed up with arbcom decisions without time limits. Past promises haven't been kept, and there is no reason to believe that without the ability to enforce, they would be kept now. iMeowbot~Mw 07:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 07:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Reapply for adminship?
I'd be interested in hearing what people feel about the prospect of asking Everyking to reapply for adminship, as some of us who were involved deeply and a few others who don't have been discussing this privately, and feel that Everyking should reapply. This is a contentious issue, and I feel it'd be a great help to the arbcom if they could get a decisive "yes" or "no" from the community. Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said earlier, it is my opinion that Everyking has been exemplary save for this Ashlee Simpson affair. Accordingly, I would hope that he can still be trusted with adminship.  On the other hand, he has exhibited a lot of conduct unbecoming of an admin;  I particularly note his "gaming the system".  Honestly, I'm not sure what the right thing to do is.  I trust the arbitrators to do a good (and fair) job, though. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 12:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is it always "gaming the system"? Sure, a desire to have the article in my preferred way is a part of it, but it's also a useful way to figure out what's acceptable to the other person. This is especially true if content discussion on talk pages has sometimes been lacking, as in this case. But you know, if people object to it, I won't do it again. I think all the crying out about "gaming the system" is massively overreacting, though. Everyking 12:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Trying to bend the rules to prevent any changes you don't like to an article is certainly gaming the system, and I think it's not really on to 'figure out what's acceptable' by pushing the limits until people get angry about it. People do certainly object to it, and have done for some time, so saying now that you won't do it is extremely belated.  It is also irrational in the extreme to claim that content discussion has been lacking - as you well know, there has been reams and reams of content discussion.
 * I do think that, as admins are supposed to be the most trusted members of the community, and that this case has seen a great deal of trust break down between Everyking and various users, it would be appropriate to have a re-nomination for adminship. That way, the community at large gets the chance to say whether it still considers Everyking worthy of that trust. Worldtraveller 13:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, having him reapply for adminship is quite necessary in light of the events.GeneralPatton 13:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In general, the ArbCom doesn't like remedies that don't have a matching finding of fact &mdash; they just look badly wrong. (There are some past examples of such remedies without matching FoFs.) - David Gerard 17:56, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks? Wikipedia administrators are expected to abide by our policies (proposed principle, no?). Everyking has violated our no personal attacks policy on more than one occasion. In addition, his gaming of the 3RR indicates an attempt to subvert policy. Just add something like "Everyking has made personal attacks on several occasions, but has apologised for most of them" and "Everyking has attempted to subvert the 3RR" and "These violations of policy run counter to the expectation that administrators be exemplary users abiding by Wikipedia policy". There, done. Johnleemk | Talk 18:02, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the real question here is not whether Everyking's non-Simpson edits are good, but whether he can be trusted in light of this debacle. If Joe User knows that the admin who's reverting him (or blocking him, or admonishing him, or whatever) has been up before ArbCom for bad behavior, will he trust that admin and abide by his decisions, or will he think "Gee, this guy's being biased and unfair just like he was with those other articles?" At this point, I think the community's level of trust ought to be ascertained in some fashion, and having Everyking re-apply for adminship is probably the easiest and most accurate way of performing such an assessment. Madame Sosostris 23:49, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm uncomfortable with the concept of this ruling being available to the ArbCom at ALL, under any circumstances. It is up to the COMMUNITY to decide this, not the ArbCom. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 10:46, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your objections to this are long belated. Where were you for Guanaco? Not only is there precedent but the community is the one demanding this happen, just in case you neglected to notice. →Reene✉ 11:09, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Pray tell, where does policy provide for the community to request deadminship? To the best of my knowledge, the only route is through the arbcom, which has a mandate from the community. The arbcom is the arm of the community &mdash; it represents the community, just like how a government represents a nation. Anyway, if there were any other such method of carrying out another vote on adminship, it would have been long abused by trolls already. Johnleemk | Talk 11:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * True, I wasn't aware of the Guanaco case which has been recently brought to my attention. As for the existing policy providing for community control? Well, we have votes for de-sysopping. I consider it a minor policy change to alter the scope of the votes there to include "no confidence" as a rationale. Although, at this point, I agree it's largely a fait accompli. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 12:28, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought Guanaco's case actually involved his use of admin powers. He was unblocking people when some people didn't like it, isn't that right? I was thinking that was the whole point of the case. Everyking 16:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * All I see is odd behavior when one specific subject is involved. If it ever expands to more articles, or actual misuse of the admin flag (I haven't really seen that, has anyone else?), then worry about drastic stuff like reapplying for adminship. The whole point of this dispute resolution process is to make the problem stop, right?  How would making EK reapply accomplish that? It wouldn't, as best I can tell.  iMeowbot~Mw 17:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the arbitration and mediation process fails the community
I have to preface this with saying that, outside of the Ashlee Simpson theater of war, Everyking has appeared to be a useful administrator and editor. But when it comes to Ashlee Simpson, he's a fanatic, and doesn't care who knows it. He has been abusive and agressive in all of these articles, and there is nothing to indicate that it won't happen again. What good does letting him have one revert in every 24 hour period? He will just revert every edit ever made between reverts, as he has done in the past. The arbitration must include an absolute ban on his editing of ANY Ashlee Simpson article, or this is no solution whatsoever. RickK 21:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm also inclined to agree with this. A one-revert parole, as I've said previously, is likely to ensure that things keep going the way they are - except that it'll just slow things down slightly. Ambi 23:05, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I talk and talk and you just won't listen. I won't revert even a single time, Rebecca. That is a promise. I want the situation resolved, too; but the point of this should be resolution, not just punishing me. Everyking 23:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on what your definition of a revert is, I suppose ... &mdash;Neuropedia 00:22, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * You talk and talk and say things that are blatantly untrue (in particular, your astonishing claim that you weren't establishing ownership of articles), and are stunned when people have trouble trusting you. And again, you mischaracterize the intent of the probable ArbCom decisions as punishment. Punishment would be banning you outright, prohibiting you from any editing at all on Ashlee Simpson articles, or stripping you of Admin privileges: none of those acts have any consensus. The things that are on the table involve setting limits [and establishing trust], and since you -- both as shown by your history and by your own admission -- think that pushing limits to get your way is OK, those limits have to have some teeth behind them to be effective.
 * If you really are sincere about cleaning up your act, then the proposed restrictions will make no difference, positive or negative; if you're not sincere, then they're necessary. Therefore, on balance, you should have no objections -- none -- to ArbCom ensuring that your promises are enforcable. --Calton 00:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) [added phrase in [] brackets above --Calton 00:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)]
 * Rick, we'll wait and see, if it happens again, arbcom can review the case again, if it does not happen, his revert limit can be lifted. GeneralPatton 03:39, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

YAO (Yet Another Opinion)
Deadmining is sheer vindictiveness (as its privledge has not been abused). However a 6-month or permanent ban from editing Ashlee Simpson related topics is probably a sufficient punishment for Everyking, all of his other article work is fine. ALKIVAR ™ 22:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, however as I've mentioned above, I reckon reapplication for adminship has its merits in this case due to an abuse of trust, rather than power. &mdash;Neuropedia 00:21, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Will the arbcom PLEASE acknowledge...
...The overwhelming evidence of personal attacks made by Everyking? The only thing addressed on the "Proposed decisions" page is his revert warring. Am I to assume that no arbcom member has gotten around to it or that the arbcom simply doesn't care about his abusive behavior in this respect? I would like a response either way. →Reene✉ 03:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * The only overwhelming evidence I've seen is a long pattern of reverts with some unkind comments (almost always about the content being removed; not the person who put it in) and a few remarks that could be considered to be personal attacks here and there. If you have other evidence to present to prove your assertion, then please place that on the evidence page. --mav 04:15, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You might try reading what's ON the Evidence page a bit more closely. A quick scan brought up these:
 * January 19 personal attack against RickK for blocking him by the 3RR.
 * "...while Reene, who is nothing but a troll with a personal dislike for Ashlee Simpson..."
 * "You see now the can of worms it's opened, with trolls now taking advantage of it."
 * "...I suggest you block her for 24 hours for vandalism."
 * And, of course, a virtual torrent of abuse at
 * User:Mackensen/Emails_between_myself_and_Everyking
 * I didn't even have to dig through the hundreds of K worth of back-and-forth on the various Talk pages to find these. And saying that calling the work of people vandalism is somehow qualitatively different from calling people vandals strikes me as hair-splitting.
 * But most importantly is that not that the lack of recognition of personal attacks, but that despite the large number of users who believe it IS an important issue, it is not even being CONSIDERED. --Calton 04:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But most importantly is that not that the lack of recognition of personal attacks, but that despite the large number of users who believe it IS an important issue, it is not even being CONSIDERED. --Calton 04:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * But most importantly is that not that the lack of recognition of personal attacks, but that despite the large number of users who believe it IS an important issue, it is not even being CONSIDERED. --Calton 04:37, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the profanity, but WTF? I linked clearly to evidence sections containing pertinent material above. I'm beginning to understand why some trolls grumble about the arbcom's inefficiency at reviewing evidence. Not that I'm challenging your authority; I understand that overlooking things is requisite since nobody can review everything related to a single dispute, but sheesh, you could at least look closely at the evidence! Johnleemk | Talk 06:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, seems to me all you can point to is me making some comments about Reene being a troll/vandalizing the article two months ago, which I've apologized for, and a private e-mail exchange which, while somewhat profane, happened at a time when I was absolutely furious at what I think was a serious injustice, and I wasn't in a proper frame of mind. Yeah, I'm the kind of person who can get a bit worked up from time to time, but if I do, I always apologize for whatever I said, and I try my very hardest not to use harsh words with people on Wikipedia, because I respect the principle of civility. Again I point out that you called me an "asshole" just a few days ago, and a "prick" some time before that. If I was really the type to engage in personal attacks, do you think I would have let those comments slide? And you still haven't apologized for saying those things, even after I've brought it up several times. Everyking 16:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably because your excuse-filled "apologies" were obviously insincere (i.e., whining about your martyrdom while doing so) and that the behavior that prompted those characterizations still continues. (Whoops, forgot to sign --Calton 03:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC))
 * Apology is an apology, it counts. Personally, I feel both sides could have been a bit more diplomatic. GeneralPatton 03:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. An apology is an acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a statement of regret for having done so. For example, the classic non-apology is "I'm sorry if anyone was offended" (as opposed to "I'm sorry for what I did."). Everyking's version of the non-apology apology is "I'm very sorry, but YOU MADE ME DO IT! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!", the form familiar to every parent with an obstreporous child. --Calton 03:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You're being ridiculous. I am sorry for saying things that were a bit too hostile and for reverting too aggressively at times. But the fact that I'm sorry for that does not excuse the behavior of my opponents in the dispute, and there is no way you're going to get me to grovel and say they are blameless. I am of course accountable for my own actions; being provoked does not necessarily justify whatever I do. But there are two sides to this dispute, and neither of them has been above hostility and anger. Everyking 04:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

POV interest in AS
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)
 * 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)
 * However, criticism and alternative explanation needs to be ackwnolidged. GeneralPatton 03:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it does, you're preaching to the choir. Everyking 04:36, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)