Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2/Proposed decision

For one thing, I vehemently dispute the idea that I've reverted anything on those articles since January. If the ArbCom feels I have been reverting, they should simply point to examples and then I won't do that anymore. It's as simple as that. Why do you need to shoot someone who's perfectly willing to hand himself in and cooperate fully? And anyway, who does Grunt suppose will be updating these articles if I'm gone? When one person is almost the sole author of a set of articles, and you ban that person from editing them, I think you've got a problem. What about concern for the product, for the information available to the reader? I ask the ArbCom to seriously consider this matter and not judge me merely based on my unpopularity with some editors, such as Snowspinner. Finally, the notion that I should be banned from editing any article in which Ashlee is even mentioned is crazy. So an article mentions Ashlee at one point as an aside, and that means I can't even touch the rest of the content? I can't even fix typos? Please seriously consider the rulings. Everyking 00:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the ArbCom do decide that your fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism on articles that mention Ashlee Simpson in any way shape or form would breach their resolution, you can leave a note on my talk page and I will fix it. I will not get into disputes over fact or revert anything that is not obviously vandalism. If any of the ArbCom object to this offer and note that here or on my talk page, I will withdraw it. Thryduulf 10:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the subject of the case, I think I deserve a response. Wouldn't it be a lot more sane for the ArbCom to simply prohibit me from restoring previously deleted info, if that's the course it wants to take, instead of dooming these articles to a future in which it is questionable whether they will be updated at all, or at least often and accurately? Everyking 02:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You've already been prohibited from restoring that info, and today, you proved you will continue to by not only reverting Ashlee Simpson but also (I think) breaking the 3RR also. I'm sure there are some people, like those you revert, that will keep those articles updated. Hedley 03:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • If you're referring to the reversion of the edits by Brian0918 and Onlyafewkings, that falls under "reverting simple vandalism", which he's allowed to do under the terms of the previous ArbCom ruling, and is not limited by the 3RR. --Carnildo 03:23, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I find it pretty disturbing that three arbitrators have voted and I've gotten no response. Will the ArbCom consider talking with me and hearing my side of the story? I would really like to hear the logic in banning someone who is both completely open to compromise on all points and almost the sole author of the articles in question. Frankly, I think if you've gotten to the point at which you'll ban someone who'll discuss and compromise and concede things all day long, dispute resolution is broken. I have repeatedly said: there is absolutely nothing that I insist on. I am flexible about everything. I want to participate in reaching a consensus, that is all, but I would be perfectly happy to participate in reaching an agreement even if the result did not satisfy me at all, because I respect the principles of consensus building and the will of the majority. So what is the point of this ruling? Why, why is this not being explained? Is it worth driving off someone who has contributed so much, devoted such an enormous amount of time to the project, when that person has violated no policies and is 100% in favor of compromise and the normal processes of dispute resolution? Everyking 15:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that as one of the parties involved in this ruling, you are entitled to a statement (500 words or less) in your own section in your arbitration page, in the format of ==Statement by [[User:Everyking|Everyking]]==. Other people can actually add similar statements to that page, but any users that add a statement become "involved" and are thus subject to any sanctions and rulings of the arbitration committee. Since you're already involved, you can add your statement without any problems. HTH --Deathphoenix 17:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It could also be ==Statement by affected party==. --Deathphoenix 17:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All right, I finally got around to writing up a statement. Everyking 11:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the Arbcom is really set on this blatantly unjust ruling, I ask that it provide a date at which I can appeal the ruling. I don't want to leave for an entire year. Everyking 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Because taking your ball and going home for three months shows sign of reform and is likely to get the ruling overturned. Snowspinner 14:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what it means to "reform", but I've already done everything I can think of to appease you, and none of it has worked. Everyking 17:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I continue to suggest you think of giving up editing Ashlee articles. But as that's apparently no longer at issue, I am "appeased" as it were, and hoping you won't leave the project over this. If you do, well, that's your right, but I genuinely think you're a better user than that. Snowspinner 17:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

I emphatically oppose Grunt's move to close. Nothing has been covered. How does the Arbcom consider that I have reverted these articles, for instance? I say I haven't reverted them. Clearly if we say a revert is a bad thing and compromising is a good thing, we shouldn't punish someone for compromising. So shouldn't the Arbcom explain this? Everyking 17:18, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think your declaration that you haven't reverted them holds a lot of weight considering the edit history and Wikipedia:Revert. Snowspinner 17:21, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're wasting your breath, EK. It was already decided as soon as the case was brought: you were the problem user in need of sanction. I mean, nobody would have brought the case if that weren't true, eh? And why should the arbcom listen to problem users? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the wording of the sanction

Grunt has written this sanction:

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

This is somewhat ungrammatical - the intention behind the words seems easy to deduce, but the wording's all mucked up. It also leaves a loophole - Everyking would be permitted to create new articles about Ashlee Simpson, even though he would not then be allowed to edit the articles he creates. I suggest a revision to:

"1) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from making edits relating to Ashlee Simpson. Without loss to the generality of the prohibition, edits made to any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or which mentions Ashlee Simpson, see what links to Ashlee Simpson, will fall within this prohibition if Everyking is edits the part of the article that is concerned with Ashlee Simpson; creating an article which refers to Ashlee Simpson also falls within this prohibitions. Violations of this restriction shall result in blocks of up to 24 hours per violation."

Also, a one year prohibition does seem somewhat harsh - maybe six months would be fairer, jguk 20:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe nothing. What did I do to warrant even a single day? Everyking 21:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would hate to think you might believe lots of people are just trying to get you banned for no reason. I can't see, though, how this could have ended in any other way than the proposed decision here. If you don't understand why it's come to this, then you need to read the talk pages on the articles, RfC, RfAr1, RfAr2 - it's all there for anyone to see. Worldtraveller 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although we had different views, do you suppose your actual behavior in the dispute has been any better than mine? My behavior has not always been perfect, but I've always adhered to the fundamental principles of discussion and concensus, and I think it's awful that I'm now being punished for that. Everyking 23:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think my conduct was better than yours during my involvement in this dispute, but if you think I behaved badly, then you're more than welcome to make an RfC or RfA. The problem is that you haven't adhered to the fundamental principle of consensus - all the evidence that's been presented overwhelmingly shows that. Honestly, read it all carefully, it's not as if everyone's just made it all up. Worldtraveller 12:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basis for votes

My votes are based on this evidence. Fred Bauder 23:52, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Have you also considered my argument that none of what are being called reverts are in fact reverts, but are actually attempts at compromise? Of course you know the importance of critically reviewing evidence. Everyking 23:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)