Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking

Case Closed on 24 January 2005

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties

A complaint by User:Johnleemk and others against User:Everyking.

Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Everyking is a fine and outstanding editor on Wikipedia, which is why it dreads me to file an RfAr against him for a second time. I have no desire to chronicle this dispute which spans Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album), La La (song) and Pieces of Me (potentially even more). All I will say is that as the RfC against him which gathered support from at least two dozen editors states in mind-numbing detail, Everyking has a history of reverting against community opinion where Ashlee Simpson is concerned. About a dozen editors have tried at one time or another to fix the article up per objections against the article the three times it was placed on FAC; all of them were reverted by Everyking.

While Everyking stopped breaking the 3RR when it became enforceable, he began deviously "partially restoring content", which effectively meant reverting in stages. There have been two attempts at mediation with Everyking, but all of them have been abandoned. More effort has been placed into discussing this than I care to recount.

Is this an article content dispute? No. This is a dispute about Everyking's gaming of the 3RR and refusal to allow other editors to make substantial changes to "his" articles. 172 argues this dispute is no big deal; I beg to differ. Everyking may be an outstanding editor where Ashlee Simpson has nothing to do with the topic, but he's a close-minded stonewaller who wears down his opponents through attrition where Ashlee Simpson is even remotely involved. I can find no recourse but arbitration, as Everyking has not stopped his activities after the RfC (where he conspicuously neglected to even file a defence); instead, he has stepped them up. A quick glance at the history of Pieces of Me shows Everyking continues to ignore the community. Does this mean other editors are blameless? Of course not. But does this mean Everyking has not played a huge role in this? No. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request for temp injunction

RickK has pointed out [1] [2] [3] [4] that Everyking is abusing his admin powers to get over a block. I fear simply limiting him to one revert a day will not work; we tried that with User:Everyking/Agreement (which is in force until February 1). We may need desysopping or a total ban from editing pages in the main namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 10:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the agreement was effective beginning early this month, but it hasn't stopped Everyking from continuing his revert warring (see evidence page). Speaking of that, you can now find some diffs of Everyking's block evasion. I didn't post all because of technical limitations (the diff link by default compares the latest revision of the article all the time if the edit you're linking to is the most current one as of the time of linking). Johnleemk | Talk 10:49, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of sysop capabities is not and is not intended to be blocked by a block on use of the edit screen. The capability to remove the block, so the community can sort things out with participation and discussion by both the blocker and blockee, also exists. Jamesday 00:25, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/2/0)

Accept. Neutrality^talk 07:51, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Recuse. Ambi 07:55, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Accept - David Gerard 10:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Accept. I was mildly active on the talk page for this at one point, so if any of the participants object to my involvement then I will consider changing this to recuse -- sannse (talk) 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Very well - Recuse -- sannse (talk) 19:38, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Accept. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 15:59, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 17:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Accept Fred Bauder 18:24, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunctions

1) Pending resolution of this matter, Everyking is limited to one revert (partial or complete) per article per twenty-four hour period for the duration of this case. Should this be violated, Everyking may be blocked for up to 24 hours.

Passed 7-0 on 20 January

2) Pending resolution of this matter, Everyking is restricted to one edit of any sort per twenty-four hour period on any article relating to Ashlee Simpson or containing material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Should this be violated, Everyking may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Should he use the admin rollback feature to edit such articles while blocked, he may be de-adminned for the duration of the case.

Passed 7-0 on 20 January

Final decision

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

Principles

Ownership of articles

1) No individual or selected group of people is entitled the right to control the content of an article. (See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.)

Passed 7-0.

Status of administrators

3) Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. (See Wikipedia:Administrators.)

Passed 8-0.

Findings of fact

Everyking is a Wikipedia administrator

1) Everyking is a Wikipedia administrator.

Passed 8-0.

Everyking's liberal view of the three-revert rule

2) 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 [5].

Passed 8-0.

Rollback feature

3) Blocked for 24 hours for violations of the 3 revert rule, Everyking continued to use the rollback feature to revert vandalism available to him as a Wikipedia administrator [6].

Passed 8-0.

Interest in Ashlee Simpson

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

Passed 8-0.

Edit warring with respect to Ashlee Simpson

5) Everyking's edits to articles which relate to Ashlee Simpson sometimes carry the level of detail in the articles to a degree which other Wikipedia editors find inappropriate. Everyking has aggressively defended his edits and engaged in edit warring with respect to them, see, for example: this reversion to Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) made with the comment: "what on earth are you people thinking? i'll revert you till doomsday, i recorded that data week by week as it happened".

Passed 8-0.

Everyking's good conduct

6) Everyking, outside of edits concerning Ashlee Simpson, is generally considered by the community to be an excellent editor.

Passed 7-0.

Remedies

Revert limitation

2.2) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.

Passed 5-1.

Clarification by arbitrators

Any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article.

Clarified 6-0.

Lifting the revert parole

3) In six months, if Everyking can demonstrate good behavior on Ashlee Simpson related articles, he may apply to the arbitration committee to have the revert parole(s) lifted.

Passed 5-0.