Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by RickK

November 26

• Talk:La La (song)/archive1
  • I listed La La (song) on Cleanup because Everyking had written a biased, pro-Ashlee Simpson article. Everyking immediately deleted the Cleanup header without explanation, and refused to accept any changes to the article. "Listing an article like this on Cleanup is absurd." He is still, today (January 16), as of this writing, reverting any and all changes that anyone else makes. RickK 23:35, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

January 17

Everyking engaged in a revert war on the Pieces of Me article, reverting four times in a 14-hour period. I blocked him for this violation, but he continued to edit. His contributions. The block was at :
18:14, Jan 16, 2005, RickK blocked Everyking (expires 18:14, Jan 17, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (violating 3RR rule on Pieces of Me) . RickK 07:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Everyking seems to believe himself above administrative discipline: [2] "Thanks for your comments; I was unable to reply to them initially because my friend RickK thought he could make an exception to Wikipedia policy for me, because I'm so special..." Everyking 01:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)" --Calton 01:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that this means the opposite of what Calton says it means, since I was blocked when I should not have been blocked, and therefore he was making an exception for me in a negative way. Everyking 02:27, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If RickK (or some relevant authority) agrees that you were blocked unfairly, than RickK should delete/cross out his comment. If the situation is merely that you unilaterally decided that the block was unfair and evaded it, then it means precisely what I said and you're just trying to rationalize your exceptionalism. Given your history and absent confirmation from RickK, guess which side I fall down on? --Calton 02:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Madame Sosostris

January 16th

• [3] I put up an in-use tag because I was going to work on some grammar issues in Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album), and Everyking removed it, which caused an edit conflict. This is merely one of many reverts he has made to the article. Madame Sosostris 00:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by silsor

Miscellaneous

In Wikipedia:Block log/Archive 3, Everyking is blocked by User:Hemanshu with reason "vandalizing and revert warring on Autobiography (album) despite being told not to do so". Everyking unblocked himself with reason "absolutely unjustifiable, and hemanshu was involved in the dispute, he should be blocked for this himself".

On January 16, Everyking reverted Pieces of Me four times[4], [5], [6], [7] and was blocked by User:RickK for violation of the 3RR. Everyking continued reverting vandalism in articles using the sysop rollback feature while blocked. This seems to be in line with his belief that "I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long."[8]

Clarification of above paragraph: Everyking does not believe (see also [9]) that he reverted Pieces of Me four times on January 16. I refer directly to the page history to show that he did. His first three reverts are clearly marked "rv" by himself. His fourth revert reverted this edit by User:Madame Sosostris back to his own last version.

January 19, personal attack against RickK for blocking him by the 3RR.

Not a personal attack. Everyking 01:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would you read the top of the page already and quit posting in other people's evidence sections. silsor 04:33, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Pieces of Me

December 14

1. In December I recognized that Pieces of Me was bursting at the seams with nonnotability, and tried to move the section giving the chord structure of the song to wikisource, but did not put in a link to the wikisource page at that time. Instead of asking for a link or looking for it himself, Everyking reverted me point-blank within two minutes.

Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

January 8

1. My first edit to Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album). It was reverted by Everyking in several pieces here on the 8th, here on the 10th, and here on the 12th.

January 13

1. On Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) I removed some minor information, and was reverted by Everyking, who changed one word.
2. I removed the minor information again, and was partially reverted by Everyking, who said in the edit summary, "the rest can stay gone for now".
3. I once again removed an unsourced claim that Everyking had slipped back in on the 12th. A day later and after 15 edits by various people, he re-inserted it in an unrelated edit.

La La (song)

January 12

1. My first edit to La La (song) was to condense some information from two paragraphs into one, since they each gave too-detailed descriptions of exactly what shenanigans Ashlee and her zany friends were up to in the La La music video. This was immediately reverted by Everyking, who reverted the user before me (User:Carnildo) in the same edit.
2. I combined the two sentences again, speculating in the edit summary whether Everyking had looked at the text before reverting me. I was reverted again.

Ashlee Simpson

January 13

1. I removed some POV comments and some obscure trivia from the Ashlee Simpson article. Everyking began a dialogue on my talk page requesting me not to use the word "trivia" in my edit summaries while removing trivia, saying that he found it "deliberate provocation".

January 14

1. I added a reference to "The Stop Ashlee Simpson Petition"[10], while trimming some extra Ashlee Simpson spin quotes from the same section. Everyking reverted the removal of the quotes, with the edit summary "you've got some nerve, removing the quote while adding that nonnotable garbage. for now, i'll just restore the quote".
2. In an edit summary Everyking characterised the online petition (which was then signed by over 15,000 people, currently by almost 40,000) as "a few internet trolls". On the talk page, he characterised it as "garbage", "nonnotable", and "trolling".

January 16

1. While Everyking had been blocked for violating the 3RR on Pieces of Me, several users that had been held back before by his presence began to clean up Ashlee Simpson. Upon his return 27 edits later, he reverted them all to the last version of the page that he had edited. Two valid changes of mine included in this blanket revert are [11], [12].
2. I reverted to the version of the article that had been produced while he was blocked, with the edit summary "reverting to iMeowbot as well; several people worked hard to conform this article to a higher standard". Everyking reverted me with the edit summary "work harder, then."

Evidence presented by Rhobite

January 8

• 00:44
  • User:Worldtraveller makes a good faith effort to trim some of the extraneous content from Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album): [13]
  • Everyking immediately says "Of course, I will revert it, although honoring my pledge I will wait until 24 hours since my last revert is up." [14]
  • 6 users express their support for Worldtraveller's version on the talk page: Dbenbenn, Tony Sidaway, Rhobite, iMeowbot, Tuf-Kat, Johnleemk. No users express support for Everyking's longer version. Everyking spends days attempting to restore pieces of the article which were removed.

Evidence presented by Reene

November 26

• Talk:La La (song)/archive1: My first dialogue with Everyking. His statement that I would be "wasting my time" by attempting to trim the article came before I ever made a change to any of the articles in question.
• Diff of my first edit along with subsequent reverts after they were restored here, here and here. Note the edit summary on the last one (emphasis mine): "what on earth are you people thinking? i'll revert you till doomsday, i recorded that data week by week as it happened"

November 27

• My first (and only) large revision of the article. Subsequent reverts by Everyking here, here and here.
• I posted a full point-by-point rundown of my changes on the talk page which can be found at Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3. Close to all of the text in Archive3 is relevant to this dispute, but I will pick out a few choice quotes made by Everyking (emphasis on certain parts mine):
  • "Sannse, I know you're a reasonable editor, but understand that Reene is not being reasonable, and that should be obvious to anyone reading this. You cannot reasonably expect me to have my article wrecked and have to deal with that all at once." (note his use of "my article")
  • "If Reene isn't willing to discuss her changes one at a time, I'll simply wait until this time tomorrow and revert again."
  • "I will accept one element of Reene's edit, any portion she chooses, provided she restores the rest. Otherwise there can be no discussion." (his idea of a "compromise")
  • "Yes, I'll be keeping an eye on my clock for when the allotted time rolls around. I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long."
  • "I meant a small portion. Something manageable. Reword one sentence, remove one quote. You can still do that. That's one compromise. Another compromise is to revert to my previous version, which was itself tailored as a compromise, and leave it at that. A third option is to revert to that version and then we can start to "think outside the box" about ways to work on the article without cutting out good quotes and factual info. Those are the three options on the table." (not only are these not compromises, but he's conveniently forgotten all of the compromises other users have laid before him, myself included)

November 28

• More revert warring: here, here, here, and here. Note personal attack in last summary (emphasis mine): "pile 'em on. removing information from an article is plain vandalism, after being asked to discuss and compromise countless times"
• Everyking saw fit to make personal attacks against me on the talk pages of multiple users.
  • User talk:Ambi/Archive6#Hello: "...And yet I get no credit for that at all, while Reene, who is nothing but a troll with a personal dislike for Ashlee Simpson, gets praised for demolishing the article." [15]
  • User talk:Snowspinner#Three-revert_rule: "You see now the can of worms it's opened, with trolls now taking advantage of it." [16] Here he also asks an admin that protected the page at the request of another user to show bias by re-protecting the page on his version instead, also accusing him of showing "favor" towards "my" version (which wasn't the complete text of my initial revision anyway, but just a fraction of it I'd re-introduced).
  • User:Andrevan/Archive5#Re:_Three_revert_rule: "...I suggest you block her for 24 hours for vandalism." [17]

November 29

• Everyking makes personal attacks as well as expresses his intent to "game the system", which continues to be more and more evident later on.

November 30

• Note that I am not sure on the Arbcom's stance on this sort of evidence, please remove or make a note if this is not something that can be considered. Everyking made multiple anonymous comments to my journal. I have IP logging enabled and asked a developer to check the IP for me. It came back conclusively as Everyking and only Everyking's IP address. I'm leary of posting it here for double-checking, but will reveal it upon request. The comments:
  • Everyking (arguably) appears to be attempting to gain information on certain users here in response to my entry.
  • Everyking shares with us his poetic abilities here with an offensive little ditty.

Well, that's all I feel like I can dig through for now. I must go nurse a migraine. →Reene^✎ 03:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Calton

I've been on vacation (a real vacation -- China? Cold) so I've missed most recent developments, but from a month ago:

December 13

On the Peer Review page [18] for Autobiography (album), I posted some statistics current of that date. To summarize:

• 554 edits on an article 140 days old (the majority (356) in November), of which 496 (or 89.5%) were by Everyking. Of the remaining 58 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- 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). (These are the numbers as best as I could reconstruct them, and frankly I don't have the strength to update the numbers.) Everyking's response was that "...I'm really the only one here who knows much of anything about the subject, or at least the only one who has bothered to contribute his knowledge[.]" --Calton 06:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Carnildo

January 12

• 16:38
  • I made my first edit to La La (song) to remove what I felt were excessive quotes and sub-trivial information. Silsor then edited to combine two paragraphs into one. [19]. Everyking reverted with the summary "Fixed removal of information" [20]

• 19:27
  • I reverted Everyking's reversion, then edited the page to replace curly quotation marks with regular quotation marks [21]. Everyking reverts both edits with the edit summary "aren't you hilarious" [22]

• 20:57
  • I revert to my version, and IMeowbot edits the page. Everyking does not revert.[23]
  • Based on what Everyking is reverting, I post eight questions for Everyking (later expanded to ten) on the talk page. Everyking has ignored them, but has made other edits on the talk page. [24]

January 13

• 15:40
  • Based on Everyking's non-reversion of the last edit to La La (song), I make similar edits to Pieces of Me [25]. Everyking reverts with the edit summary of "rv, naturally. what do you expect? please avoid making changes you know will be controversial without prior discussion" [26]

January 14

• 3:20
  • Everyking reverts La La (song) with the edit summary of "rv" [27]. This revert is promptly reverted as vandalism by Neuropedia [28]

• 11:34
  • I revert Everyking's reversion of Reene's reversion of Everyking's reversion of my edits to Pieces of Me [29]
  • A revert war ensues, in which I revert the page four times; Everyking makes three full reverts and four partial reverts adding up to a full revert. I report the war on WP:AN and, as expected, get blocked for violating the 3RR [30]; Everyking does not get blocked. [31]

January 15

• 16:57
  • Upon returning from a 24-hour block for violating the 3RR, I try a new set of edits to La La (song). In my edit summary, I make mention of the as-yet-unanswered questions on the talk page. [32]. Everyking reverts me with the edit summary "you're back! gosh, where were you all this time?" [33]

• 19:10
  • I post six as-yet-unanswered questions relating to Everyking's reversions of Pieces of Me on the talk page. [34]
  • I try again at editing Pieces of Me. [35]
  • Madame Sosostris makes a couple of edits

• • At some point, Everyking gets blocked for violating the 3RR

January 16

• • At some point, Everyking gets unblocked so he can respond to this RfAr

• 9:45 - Everyking reverts Pieces of Me with edit summary "rv" [36] and is reverted and referred to the talk page
• 14:59 - Everyking reverts Pieces of Me with edit summary "rv" [37] and is reverted
• 16:08 - Everyking reverts Pieces of Me with edit summary "rv" [38] and is reverted and referred to the talk page
• 18:02 - Everyking reverts one section of Pieces of Me with edit summary "Restore some info" [39] and is reverted and referred to the talk page

• 8:03 - Everyking reverts La La (song) with edit summary "rv" [40] and is reverted
• 15:03 - Everyking reverts La La (song) with edit summary "rv" [41] and is reverted

Statistics

• I've done some similar statistics to Calton's. They're more recent, but less precise:
  • As of the evening of January 16, the article Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) has seen approximately 900 edits
  • Of those, approximately 82 have been reverts
    • 50 have used "revert" or "rv" in the edit summary
    • 22 have used "restore" in the edit summary
    • 1 was a revert for vandalism
  • Approximately 720 of those edits were by Everyking
  • At one point, Everyking made roughly 100 consecutive edits

Evidence presented by Johnleemk

26 November 2004

• Reene's first rewrite; Everyking's reverts of it and attempts to restore it: [42], [43], [44].

27 November 2004

• [45] - Everyking makes a case for his ownership of Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)
• [46], [47], [48] - Everyking implies the only way he can edit an article is to revert it
• [49] - Everyking states his idea of compromise being reverting to his revision and working out the matters on talk (instead of trying for a middle ground edit)

28 November 2004

• [50] - displays intent to revert without coming to consensus
• [51], [52] - insists on the terms of others' editing
• [53] - displays intent to revert instead of compromise and calls Reene's work vandalism
• [54] - reverts AlexR without discussion

29 November 2004

• [55] - reverts AlexR again without discussion
• [56] - not only displays contempt for policy, but compares reverting Reene's rewrites 30 times to reverting vandalism 30 times
• [57] - continues insisting on finding compromise on his terms
• [58] - displays intent to game 3RR
• [[59] - displays intent to game the 3RR instead of working towards consensus

30 November 2004

• [60] - insists the article be edited on his terms, refusing to enter into discussion until such an eventuality
• [61] - not only does the above but insults others' work
• [62] - displays intent to game 3RR
• [63] - reverts Reene again

10 December 2004

• [64], [65] - reverting Dr Zen

14 December 2004

• [66] - reverting Thesteve's go at editing
• [67], [68] - reverting Dr Zen's reverts to Thesteve's revision

23 December 2004

• [69] - once more throws his weight around as if he owns the article
• [70] - blatantly declares his intent to revert endlessly instead of compromise
• [71] - reverting Tony's revert to my revision

24 December 2004

• [72] - indicates that he will revert to his revision instead of attempt to work with the changes of others
• [73] - takes his position of "I'll revert instead of trying to work with others' edits" and runs with it
• [74] - reverting my and Tony's efforts again

25 December 2004

• [75] - displays intent to game the 3RR
• [76] - reverting is the best solution we've got, seems to be what Everyking's saying

1 January 2005

• [77] - dodges the question of whether reverting instead of fixing problems is the best way to solve a dispute
• [78] - displays his contempt for every attempt made to fix the article up to the complaints made on FAC and PR

3 January 2005

• [79] - reverting Vague Rant's attempt

4 January 2005

• [80] - displays more contempt by giving a petty and nonsensical excuse for reverting

6 January 2005

• [81] - displays contempt for others' work

7 January 2005

• [82] - reverting Dbenbenn's attempt at editing a compromise

8 January 2005

• [83], [84] - Everyking displays intent to revert instead of compromise

9 January 2005

• [85] - Everyking reverts Tony's change in spite of promising not to
• [86] - reverting Rhobite's revert to Dbenbenn's revision

17 January 2005

RickK blocked Everyking effective 13:08 UTC. In spite of that, Everyking has abused his sysop privileges to evade the block (although they have been made in good faith, and are actually excellent edits, considering they're justified reverts, something I've never seen Everyking do, in person, before). [87] [88] [89] [90]

18 January 2005

• [91] - Everyking accuses other editors of doing nothing but page-blanking and writing profanity
• [92] - when rebutted by Tony, Everyking denies he was talking about Ashlee Simpson-related material. Lest anyone think there's some confusion here, see the point Everyking was responding to: [93]. Everyking's response makes no sense as it's apparent he's responding to the portion about Ashlee Simpson articles.
• [94] - Counter to Danny's insistence Everyking won't touch these articles again. Every promise Everyking makes has its loopholes, and this one is no exception.
  • If Danny said I flatly promised to never edit an Ashlee article again, he misunderstood me. What I told him, and what I told 172, was that I would not revert or embroil myself in that controversy anymore, and that if I did edit them again it would only be to make updates or uncontroversial revisions. If you wish me to disclaim that too, I suppose I will have to do so, but that seems incredibly extreme. Everyking 12:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • How many times have I heard the same old tune before? "I'll drop out of editing for a few days, except to add some uncontroversial things once in a while". Next thing I know, there's another edit war. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You've never heard that before. Quit it, John. If you were just interested in solving this conflict between us, then you would drop it, because I will no longer be involved. It appears you are just out to get me at this point. Everyking 18:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The degree of falsehood here is staggering. The discussion was about my use of the rollback feature against vandalism while I was blocked for supposedly violating the 3RR. I have not been using rollback in the Ashlee disputes at all. Everyking 12:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You didn't make that clear at all in your original post. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How was it not clear? Nobody was replacing any text with profanity. Do you think that I am insane? In the context it seemed perfectly clear; if you misinterpreted, I guess it wasn't, although I'd suggest that it may be evidence that you are eager to believe the absolute worst of me. Everyking 12:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mackensen

15 January 2005

Fvw initially blocked Everyking for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Pieces of Me (see discussion [95]). 172 undid the block, arguing that Everyking's "partial reverts" were an attempt at compromise. It was my judgment that Everyking was making a mockery of the three-revert rule, so I re-imposed the block for the remaining 23 hours. That block was undone by Ambi, so that Everyking could respond to this RfAr.

• 17:53, 14 Jan 2005 Fvw blocked "User:Everyking" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Pieces of Me)
• 18:29, 14 Jan 2005 172 unblocked User:Everyking (Everyking appears only to have two recent reverts. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, perhaps seeking compromise, so this does not count)
• 21:23, 15 Jan 2005 Mackensen blocked "User:Everyking" with an expiry time of 23 hours (Reinstatement of block for violation of the three-revert rule. The 3RR has no meaning if it is not enforced against those who seek to evade it with malice aforethought. Fellow admins, please permit this block to stand.)
• 06:39, 16 Jan 2005 Ambi unblocked User:Everyking (Unblocking to allow him to respond to pending arbitration case.)

Now, when I blocked Everyking I immediately emailed him explaining why. We exchanged some twenty-four emails over the next couple hours. I found myself the subject of verbal abuse, accusations of conspiracy, and assumption of bad faith (e.g. I was told to f*** off). He also demanded that I unblock him.

I have posted the complete transcript at User:Mackensen/Emails between myself and Everyking.

Evidence by Danny

I have been corresponding with Everyking, and he has declared that he will stay clear of this article. The emails have been passed on to the Arb Comm. Since his ban expired, he has been working on very different topics. I suggest that everyone assume good faith, and that this whole episode be dropped. Danny 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Pardon the redundancy, but in case anyone missed it you should read Everyking's clarification just above when considering Danny's statement. --Calton 00:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence by User:Jamesday

I was contacted when people thought that there was editing going on while there was a 24 hour block from use of the edit screen in place. As a developer, I'm aware that the block is only a block on the use of the normal edit screen. In the software a block is not, and is not intended to be, a desysopping. It appears that some people were surprised or unhappy with that, even though there is deliberate structure to the adding and removal of sysop capabilities: admins can neither add nor remove and bureaucrats are able to add sysop capability but not remove it. This is entirely deliberate, to limit the escalation of disagreements between individual admins by forcing the involvment of a larger part of the community first. Jamesday 23:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)