Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyking

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description[edit]

I first came upon Autobiography (album) on the 21st of November, 2004, when Everyking nominated it for featured article status. Several people objected to what was perceived as bias and an excessive amount of trivial quotes and data, including myself. I thought nothing of it until I came across a controversy about it between Hemanshu, Reene and Everyking. I tried to wade in and mediate, as can be seen on Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1; the dispute was boiling over, with Everyking making comments in his edit summaries like "i'll revert you till doomsday" and Hemanshu complaining Everyking was refusing to let him edit the article. During this period of about two hours on November 26, there were an astonishing eight reversions, five of them by Everyking.

Hemanshu had placed the article on peer review and Gentgeen listed it on cleanup; however, Hemanshu insisted on adding the peer review tag to the article instead of its talk page. I corrected him and participated in the discussion on peer review. In the meantime, Hemanshu blocked Everyking, a fellow sysop, who immediately protested, and was unblocked (I'm not sure by whom; it could have been himself [he did unblock himself —silsor]). Everyking persisted in removing the cleanup and peer review tags, in particular because he felt Hemanshu was trying to "push for deletion of large portions of the article", in spite of the fact that this was the conclusion the FAC had led to, and the peer review itself was leading to.

I was cordial with both sides, and could find common ground with Everyking in that I felt singles articles he was spinning off from the article (like La La (song)) were encyclopedic, but as the dispute progressed, I became disturbed by his cavalier attitude, which had already driven Hemanshu away from editing the article by the day after it began. Meanwhile, Ashley Pomeroy and The Punisher had also entered the dispute and given their opinion, which was, again, that several quotes should be trimmed and that the article could use some tightening.

Believing that perhaps Everyking was unaware of his actions and their effects, I admonished him against his blanket reverting and strongarming out other editors from editing the article. His response was that "Hemanshu, Gentgeen and Reene can't just storm in and disregard my opinion and start trashing the article" and that they were going to block him if he tried to edit the article. In turn, I told him that "They did not disregard your opinion. ... Edits do not need to pass muster for consensus on the talk page. ... While Hemanshu blocked you ..., the others have made no indication of doing so. Also, your second and third reasons for not ignoring you are completely invalid. Writing an article gives you no special status. Neither does "professional knowledge". You are correct your opinion should be heard, as you are an editor, too. But your conduct has shown that you prefer that all edits must be approved by you or face reversion, something which I cannot stand for."

Everyking then complained I was threatening to block him if he edited the article. When I told him off, he answered, "But it makes no sense to tell me this, because I have no objections to others editing the article, as I have plainly stated repeatedly. I am, in fact, the only one involved in this who has made the point that we should all work collaboratively in a spirit of compromise. Hemanshu has blocked me. Reene has said I should be blocked, or desysoped. You said above that my edits are prohibited, which more or less amounts to a threat of blocking, at least as I perceive it."

Ambi (currently an arbitrator, then a mediator) joined the foray, also telling Everyking he was a bit too much in objecting to my compromise attempts and in editing the article in a manner against consensus. Everyking then said I had told him I would not stand for him reverting in the way he was then doing, to which I answered that that was a far, far cry from telling him his edits were prohibited; indeed, this response implied the only way for him to edit would be to revert.

Reene then continued to argue with Everyking about the article, especially berating him for pretending to stand for compromise when most of his attempts at compromising were merely reverts. At this point, I too began agreeing that Everyking's attempts at compromise were pretty poor; indeed, he seemed to be exerting too much control on the article (for example, he told Hemanshu, "Your opinion has been registered, Hemanshu, but nothing will come of it as long as I'm watching this article."). Shard suggested a poll, but sannse (then a mediator, now arbitrator) objected to this and the poll came to nothing.

Reene then provided an annotated commentary for her changes to the article. Everyking and Shard continued to oppose them (Shard wanted every quote Ashlee Simpson had made to be in the article), but I, sannse, The Punisher, Ashley Pomeroy, Drstuey and AlexR all agreed Reene's changes were good; indeed, they were what most, if not all, who responded to the FAC and peer review request wanted.

Everyking continued his revert spree, and Reene continued to revert. Everyking then complained Reene did not explain her edits, in spite of the fact that her annotated commentary had already been provided.

It was at this point Everyking wrote the first of many controversial subarticles to come: Autobiography album design. Several editors including myself objected to it, and it was successfully VfDed. Everyking kept complaining we were not compromising, even though most if not all of his offered compromises were heavily tilted in his favoured revision of the article. Rather then pointed out "[i]t doesn't look like a compromise if other people are still reverting it. A compromise should be something everyone is okay with."

Reene proceeded to complain that Everyking was the pot calling the kettle black when he felt his work on a compromise version had been wasted, as her attempts had been reverted by him. Everyking called her edits destructive, and made in bad faith, to which ShaneKing responded, "[i]t appears you've broken the 3RR here, so I don't see how you can accuse others of being destructive and working in bad faith."

Everyking then compared Reene's edits to vandalism, implying his reverting them 30 times was the same as reverting a page blanking thirty times. Later on, he made clear his idea of compromise: "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."

Reene quite rightly responded, "None of those are compromises, not fair ones anyway. Coming to a compromise means coming to an acceptable middle ground, not 'allowing' someone to make a very minor change so long as they promise not to touch the rest of it." Drstuey then told off Everyking who had requested an apology from Reene, saying it was Everyking who should apologise to Reene, and not vice-versa.

Reene then added the article to RfC (this appears to have been the second time), to which Everyking strenously objected, calling it lunacy. Calton joined the fray, telling Everyking, who had earlier protested what he called "lunacy" and said he would no longer discuss the issue until the page was unprotected, to stop harassing Reene.

Mgm then suggested more subarticles be created. Everyking tried to continue discussion by quoting from Reene's LiveJournal where she called him a "f***ing fanboy" [Note: Actual quote: "...leads me to believe the guy is an utter fanboy..." [1]]. Reene made more remarks to that effect on the talk page, to which Snowspinner told her to be careful about, as she was treading in deep waters related to the no personal attacks policy. Reene's response was to list a couple of personal attacks Everyking had made himself, in which he called her a troll.

Reene then revealed she had been ready to accept one of Everyking's proposed compromises, until she had read a comment of his on her LiveJournal. The atmosphere continued to simmer with more to-and-froing between them. Michael Snow then posted an interlude, reminding all sides to be civil, while unprotecting the article (it had been protected earlier upon my and one other person's request).

Everyking then said he felt that "we" needed more chart data from outside the U.S., to which Dr Zen answered, "Is that the royal "we"? You don't allow anyone else to have any input into this page." Dr Zen then rewrote the page, and was reverted (there's been a lot of other stuff going on, but I've omitted it mostly because participating in the dispute numbs one to such gross abuses of the system). Everyking posted a list of differences and asked readers to judge which was "more informative". Calton responded he felt Dr Zen's was better, and Worldtraveller concurred.

More arguing occurred between Everyking and Dr Zen. Reene butted in once from her Wikivacation to ask what happened to her changes and for some citations. Tony Sidaway helped do up some tables for the article. Tuf-Kat then edited the article and was reverted. He posted an annotated commentary for his changes. Everyking's response was to weakly argue he couldn't deal with so much information and preferred working in "baby steps". (Funny, he has so much time to call Reene a troll and argue like hell, but not enough time to actually work towards compromise; he talks the talk but fails to walk the walk, as we shall see again later.)

I then attempted a last shot rewrite (if I'm not mistaken, this was after it was nominated as an FAC for the third time; here are links to the second and third nominations). Unsurprisingly, Everyking reverted me. Tony then complained, and Everyking argued he didn't like most (but not all) of the changes. They continued arguing, but I happily stayed out of the dispute.

Everyking then proposed creating Autobiography sales and chart positions, to which I objected. Another argument continued between us, with me arguing that Everyking's presentation of data did not require a separate article. We continued discussing, and in between lulls, I inserted complaints regarding his attitude of ownership towards the article.

Exasperated, Tony made this comment on the talk page: "Everyking, you have reverted every single edit made since 12:31, 23 Dec 2004 with the exception of the insertion of the text Main article: Autobiography sales and chart positions and the addition of a single column of chart data that you have added since yesterday. ... You are knowingly making it impossible for other editors to contribute."

And what did Everyking have to say? "Is that a surprise? I plainly stated my intentions in advance. Make a few relatively minor changes and I will try to work with those while concurrently discussing matters here. But I can't accept all those massive changes and the removal of information without prior discussion. You know that."

Tony then nominated the sales and chart positions article for deletion, but the motion was eventually defeated. In the meantime, Everyking was publicly displaying his defiance: "I did revert four times in the space of 24 hours+1 minute, that's true, but I was careful not to break the 3RR. I said to bear in mind the inclusion/deletion difference. ..."

More discussion between Tony and Everyking then ensued. Tony proposed a compromise temporary article for editing, which Everyking said he agreed with in spirit. However, Everyking then berated Tony for accusing him of strutting like he owns the article and unreasonably reverting, calling such allegations untrue.

Finally, I attempted another rewrite. Yet again, I was reverted. Yet again, Tony complained. Yet again, Everyking said my edit was of poor quality. Anyone else see the pattern here? Tony sums it up for us: "Have you noticed that this is true of practically any edit anybody other than you ever does? Admit it, man, you're adopting a proprietorial attitude to this article and an attitude of 'only my changes are any good.'"

I then requested arbitration. Panicking, Everyking flailed about, and after three or four days, we came to an agreement which conspicuously ommitted a provision I had insisted on earlier, namely that Everyking be banned from reverting more than once to the same revision of an article. Regardless, I signed it, but Tony and Ambi, who had been discussing matters with Everyking, openly registered their protest.

After this was done, Everyking posted a request that people work in baby steps and avoid rewrites. With the results from three FACs and one peer review listing still fresh in my memory, I rewrote the article again. This was no great rework; just rewording here and there. Everyking reverted me again. A full-scale argument between him, Tony and myself ensued. I asked him if he strove for consensus and compromise, why was he reverting instead of reworking? His answer: "If an edit decreases the quality of an article, then you absolutely should revert. It's not some badge of pride to wear that you let bad edits stand." Apparently my, Reene's, Hemanshu's, Tony's and Dr Zen's edits were all so worthless, they could never ever have been worked into a compromise form.

Everyking also noted that his revert was not a blanket revert, to which I answered, "It is a blanket revert. More than 90% of my changes were reverted, and if anything, I find your version less informative. People who don't know much about the record industry might wonder how "Pieces of Me" was a hit before the album's release; calling it a hit single clarifies that. And just what was the error with the vocal backing track on SNL?"

Everyking ignored me and then suggested Autobiography promotion and publicity. Our argument continued, and then stalled for a few days. Upon my return from a short Wikibreak, I bailed out of the controversy for what I hoped was for good.

Worldtraveller in the mean time was also discussing things with Everyking, and also had come to a brick wall. Vague Rant then had a shot at his rewrite. Unsurprisingly, he was reverted. Pissed off, he launched into a tirade on the talk page, and included another commentary for each of his changes. Fazed, Everyking finally gave ground and reinstated some (but not all) of Vague Rant's modifications.

Tony, however, had something else to complain about, namely Everyking's excuse for reverting Vague Rant: "A paragraph placement got moved and therefore a whole bunch of paragraphs were red, making it difficult for me to determine what was changed. So I erred on the side of caution and restored my version." As Tony said, "That is the most pathetic excuse for almost wholesale reversion of another person's edits that I have ever seen. If you can't be bothered to proof an edit, how dare you revert it." Tony and Everyking then continued another blathering debate.

Finally, Dbenbenn proposed a poll for removing a sentence from the article. As of this writing, there are six votes for removing it to one for keeping it. As Rhobite observed, "It's disappointing that per-sentence voting may be the only way to demonstrate consensus here."

And now, here we stand. Worldtraveller has attempted a rewrite, but Everyking has promised to revert it as soon as possible. Ambi has promised to try her hand at rewriting as well.

This is a very condensed statement of the dispute. Despite its length, there are depths which I have not plunged to for the sake of brevity. There are four archives for Talk:Autobiography (album), and several talk pages for several subarticles; perhaps editors involved there would like to chip in their summary as well in the outside views section below. (Don't worry, endorsing more than one opinion is perfectly fine.)

Some people say, "Aw, this is just Ashlee Simpson. What's the big deal?" Well, not much really. However, Everyking's taken on more than half a dozen sysops, two mediators who are now arbitrators, and several more editors. Such gross inconsideration of community consensus should not and cannot be tolerated. And another thing: This sets a terrifying precedent. If Everyking can bully people into submission here, someone with the same attitude can do the same elsewhere. Everyking's done a terrific job of gaming the system by not obviously breaking any rules. And we're a hundred times smaller than MSN right now, as UninvitedCompany has pointed out. When we grow that big, we'll have a hundred Everykings. I don't want a hundred articles like this, whether nobody cares about them (i.e. chicken nugget) or it's the biggest deal ever ([insert your most favourite thing/person in the whole wide world]).

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Reene's first rewrite; Everyking's reverts of it and attempts to restore it: [2], [3], [4]. There are many more rewrites by many people, but I will only cover the seriously disputed ones here.
  2. [5], [6] - reverting AlexR
  3. [7] - accuses Reene of vandalism
  4. [8] - displays intent to game the 3RR instead of working towards consensus
  5. [9] - attacking people's work and displaying an intent to game the 3RR again
  6. [10] - uncommented revert
  7. [11], [12] - reverting Dr Zen
  8. [13] - reverting Thesteve's go at editing
  9. [14], [15] - reverting Dr Zen's reverts to Thesteve's revision
  10. [16] - reverting my edit
  11. [17] - reverting Tony's revert to my revision
  12. [18] - reverting my and Tony's efforts again
  13. [19] - reverting Vague Rant's attempt
  14. [20] - reverting Dbenbenn's attempt at editing a compromise
  15. [21] - Everyking reverts Tony's change in spite of promising not to
  16. [22] - reverting Rhobite's revert to Dbenbenn's revision
  17. And much, much more, at [23], [24] and [25].

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Three revert rule
  2. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
  3. Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:Assume good faith (semi-policy, is frequently applied in arbcom findings of fact)
  5. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (semi-policy, is frequently applied in arbcom findings of fact)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Autobiography (album)
  2. Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1
  3. Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive2
  4. Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3
  5. Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive4
  6. Talk:Autobiography sales and chart positions (iMeowbot)
  7. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography album design
  8. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography sales and chart positions
  9. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography promotion and publicity
  10. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking
  11. First FAC nom
  12. Second FAC nom
  13. Third FAC nom
  14. Peer review listing (features some compelling distillation of salient points from the dispute by Calton)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 19:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. I returned to Wikipedia while this dispute was already underway, and was shocked at the sheer volume of non-information contained in these articles, and relevant information that has been suppressed. It was already apparent that attempts to fix the problems would be futile, so to date I haven't felt welcome to make the required substantial changes (it seems unproductive, given the revert issues). Attempts to explain why even individual paragraphs are uninformative and suitable for removal result only in lengthy stonewalling on Everyking's part and refusals to satisfactorily defend their inclusion. iMeowbot~Mw 20:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. See also [26] Dbenbenn 21:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Reluctantly. However, I'd like to distance myself from the suggestion that polls represent consensus. Any consensual solution must include James. Dr Zen 00:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 03:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. While I'm loathe to engage in dispute, I think that in this case, it's rather necessary. I am of the view that the majority is not always right, but in this case, I feel that such a majority of reasonable editors indicates a basis for their editing, and the user in question's editing hasn't reflected this. - Vague | Rant 06:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Absolutely. I began this whole sorry process even earlier, before all of the Autobiography mess, when Everyking was still filling the La La article with subtrivial cruft (see Talk:La La (song)/archive1). He even refused to allow the article to be listed on Cleanup, announcing that his version was perfect and needed nothing changed ("One does not list a page like this on cleanup, it's absurd."). He absolutely refused to allow any edits that were not his. He seems to think that articles he gets interested into are his and only he can edit them. Everyking needs to be taught the meaning of collegiality and how to work with others. RickK 10:30, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Well who didn't see this coming. Nothing else I could say here hasn't already been said by someone else. →Reene✎ 04:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  9. I got involved with this when I saw Autobiography (album) nominated for FAC, and noticed that Everyking's responses to votes objecting were aggressive and uncooperative. I joined the discussion, agreeing that substantial trimming would be improve the article greatly. Eventually I did a substantial re-write of the article myself. I now note that despite a promise not to revert against consensus ([27]), and a clear consensus in favour of a re-write such as mine ([28]), Everyking is trying to gradually restore everything I cut, without alteration ([29], [30], [31]). Worldtraveller 12:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. I chipped in a lot of discussion on the Talk and VfD and Peer Review discussions for a while before giving up - I got stonewalling and no movement on his part. I also tried a single edit - I removed the word notable regarding the list of promotional TV appearances. He changed it back to significant. Drstuey 13:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Frustrating. I have tried several improvements to various parts of Everyking's Article Kingdom in the last week; none of them has survived. I guess I could say that my most successful edit to an Ashlee page was the removal of a unsourced, empty-headed claim, which he graciously permitted to be absent from the article for a whole four days (!) before smuggling it back in with this edit. silsor 02:35, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rhobite 20:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) -- I'm not going to certify this RFC since I'm peripheral to this dispute, but I endorse the arguments presented here. Outside of the Ashlee Simpson articles, Everyking is a very good editor and administrator. Unfortunately he has dominated Ashlee Simpson articles through a process which is best described as attrition. He's committed to gradually wearing down those who disagree with him, and he's an expert at gaming the system. This is disappointing.
  2. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) — I thoroughly agree with Rho's summary.
  3. Ashley Pomeroy 20:43, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) My opinion on the subject of the article is that 'Autobiography' is neither significant, influential, innovative or otherwise notable for such a lengthy collection of facts and quotes; and that, conversely, it isn't trivial enough for the extreme length and prolixity of the article to count as humour (viz the Time Cube and Gene Ray pages, which are both informative and dryly funny, because they treat an unusual subject with earnest seriousness). I also can't stand Blur, I have always hated them, but I wouldn't tamper with an article on them, and I can understand why they have remained a successful and relevant part of the UK's popular culture over the years. PARAGRAPH! However, Wikipedia does not judge subjects; 'Autobiography' is clearly notable on account of its media coverage and popularity. And there is no reason why an article on the album, and indeed its singles, cannot be lengthy. My central problem is that the ratio of informative content to meaningless padding is very poor. The article is a huge, indiscriminate collection of facts, quotes, sales figures and so forth. There is no suggestion that Ashlee Simpson did not write the songs which she performs; as a consequence, the quotes from her relating to each song's genesis are facile and meaningless. There is little in the way of context, and large parts of the article seem overtly slanted in Simpson's favour. PARAGRAPH! Ultimately, I am concerned for Everyking. The article seems to have been created specifically to be a 'featured article', with the intention of creating the absolute final word on the subject, which is no sin. The spin-off pages relating to the article seem to be a result of excessive passion following the rejection of the parent. In my opinion, and loathe as I am to say this, Everyking is trying too hard. I myself nominated an article - HMS Dreadnought (1906) - for 'featured' status, and spent a couple of days knocking it into acceptable shape; that it was not selected is neither here nor there, in the wider world. His edit history contains many legitimate amendments and additions to conventional articles. He has been helpful during the recent Sollog unpleasantness. He is clearly not a troll; indeed, he is an admin, a position of some responsibility.
    I don't think subjects have to deserve their length. A scarcely remarkable subject can have a very long, informative article, and a very remarkable subject can have a very short, dull one, depending on editor interest. I know you are making that point but you did include the suggestion of what subjects deserve, which is rather unfair to Everyking. Dr Zen 00:43, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I don't think that's what Ashley was saying: "And there is no reason why an article on the album, and indeed its singles, cannot be lengthy. My central problem is that the ratio of informative content to meaningless padding is very poor." Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    Precisely. The response to attempts to clean up the extraneous material has repeatedly been to move the problem text into a new page and add even more extraneous material. This does not address the fundamental problems, it exacerbates them. iMeowbot~Mw 15:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Cool Hand Luke 21:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) — Good editor, but seems to have taken far too much ownership. Ties up resources with his protective edit wars.
  5. Concur with Rhobite. One gets a sense that Everyking feels he owns the topic. I don't want to drive Everyking away, but things need to change with regard to how he treats topics related to fandom. --Improv 23:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Since I only briefly stepped in, I endorse the RfC here. I only mande one comment, because it was painfully obvious that no amount of argument would convince Everyking that he is certainly overdoing things here. I have been following the matter, though, and I have certainly not changed my original impression. I also very much question whether an admin should behave that way — preferably not, I'd say. I am perfectly aware that he did not abused his admin powers here, but nevertheless, a certain standard of behaviour can and should be expected from an admin. Also, several of his comments and actions should get any user into some serious debates about conduct, and consequences if continued; like his reverts or his demand that all other people edit only "one little thing at a time" and so on. Something has to be done about this farce, or we will indeed face the same behaviour over many articles - something I think nobody looks forward to. -- AlexR 16:41, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. As noted in my VfD comment, I spent way too much time reading edit histories and talk pages, just to see what had caused this to get out of hand. Previously I'd only noted the "La La" VfD, and figured the tempest would pass. Now I see this has blown a whole bunch of WP resources and gotten a bunch of hardworking contributors upset. The main summary above seems consistent with the facts. Everyking doesn't own these articles; the community consensus does. Barno 19:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to sign here or in the section above, as I've never taken part in one of these before. I was briefly involved in the subject, and at least the section of the summary relating to me is accurate from my perspective. Everking has long been a valuable contributor, and I'm sure he can continue to work hard and improve Wikipedia. His reverts on this (and related) articles, however, have not done any good. Anyone who has been around Wikipedia for more than a little while should have long ago recognized consensus and worked on removing trivia. It is worth noting that very few of my changes, most of which Everyking reverted, were substantive -- I merely condensed unneeded verbiage, and knocked 4k off the article with just that. Tuf-Kat 01:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  9. After minor edits, and a reformatting on La La (song) I was reverted, I have reminded EK on several occaisions "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." even on one occasion using it as my edit summary, yet was still reverted. Even minor npov tweaks such as "very sexual" to "sexual" was reverted to "highly sexual". Its clear to me that while his edits on other subjects appear fine, anything regarding his "pet project" on Ashlee Simpson or related materials that he is babysitting and asserting ownership.  ALKIVAR™ 05:08, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. I concur with Rhobite, Alkivar, etc. ugen64 02:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Everyking's behaviour has been ridiculous and the page histories clearly show the levels he has gone to to work outwith the bounds of that expected by Wikipedia contributors, and an admin no less —Neuropedia 07:18, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
  13. Strongly agree with previous statements. ElBenevolente 06:05, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  14. As do I. I've only had a fleeting interaction with Everyking and the Ashlee Simpson edit, and I found that his attitude was basically "my way or the highway", and this is very unproductive. Upon telling him to "grow up" on Reene's LiveJournal, he removed himself from my Southern notice board, although I really didn't care either way. Mike H 19:56, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
  15. This endorsement is probably redundant, given that there is an arbitration case open on Everyking's behavior. Nevertheless, I suppose I should go on record. The article ownership, the default assumptions of bad faith, the skirting of rules, the abusive language, Everyking's attitude that he is somehow special (special knowledge, special privileges, especially valuable to Wikipedia) -- all of this sets bad precedents which need to be reined in. --Calton 08:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  16. Worrying behavior, profoundly worrying. GeneralPatton 10:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view 1[edit]

I can only speak about Autobiography promotion and publicity. FWIW, I don't think EveryKing made it to disrupt Wikipedia. He made it to cut down article size, which is perfectly acceptable. I placed it on VfD because it is not notable enough. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Ah okay, if others can endorse the outside views, I will endorse this one too (I did so and removed it when I wasn't sure). TBSDY's VfD is nothing personal, it's done on the basis of notability. --Deathphoenix 02:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Edeans 17:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2[edit]

Everyking seems to be a good-faith contributor who usually makes good contributions. Speaking as an outside viewer, I think it seems that he is taking "his" Autobiography articles too personally. There should be no "owners" of any articles except for user pages. I strongly believe that once you submit an article or edit to Wikipedia, it is no longer yours. That goes with the various levels of copyright used here (GFDL, CC, and public domain). Everyking is obviously a huge fan of Autobiography (and of Ashlee Simpson), and maybe that's the biggest danger.

If he wanted full ownership of "his" article with no other people "destroying" it, he should put it up on a web site. If he makes a contribution to Wikipedia, he should be prepared to have his work mutilated and edited mercilessly if need be. I expect (and have seen) some of my own edits mutilated because I missed something, I wasn't aware of common practices, or because my edits were simply not good. If you can't honestly say that you wouldn't mind having your contributions to a particular article edited with extreme pain, then don't make those contributions and concentrate on another article that you don't feel so personally about.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Deathphoenix 23:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Edeans 01:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Can I endorse this one too? Not clear on the rules.Dr Zen 02:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Of course you can. I've endorsed four or five viewpoints in an RfC before. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Maybe Everyking should try to stay away from topic which are too close to him. It's not always good to be an expert of fan of what you are writing an article about. - Jeltz talk 16:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. Carnildo 20:05, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. Concurring with Rhobite (and originally misplacing my comment — I've avoided conflicts with Everyking). The underlying problem is probably that Wikipedia's be bold slogan too easily is understood as applying also to ripe and good articles, which after some time of exposure for not-so-intelligent changes has a hardening effect on many a Wikipedian and makes reactions such as Everyking's understandable — though not excusable. --Ruhrjung (originally signed: 23:40, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC))
    Actually, you don't need to have been involved, periphally or deeply, to endorse any particular summary. Johnleemk | Talk 13:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  9. I think Everyking might want to take a break from worrying about these articles. He seems to be taking others' edits as insults to his ability (or Simpson's, for that matter). To me, that's a sign that it's time to start working on something less controversial, like micronations or communism or something. Madame Sosostris 17:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  10. Gtabary 18:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 3[edit]

I (Tony Sidaway|Talk) have considered, and deliberately decided against, pursuing dispute resolution with James (Everyking) on this issue. This is because I think the crux of the matter as I see it is a conflict in our respective viewpoints on what comprises a good article and what comprises acceptable editing behavior. In practice I think the problem existed only because editors other than James have up to now been reluctant to be drawn into an edit war, and we have been taking on the task of trying to edit the article alone. More recently some of us have focused time and energy on reaching agreement that the article should be edited, and through force of numbers have been able to push through some changes that we all broadly agreed upon.

Johnleemk's evidence shows that I have not stinted in my criticism of what I see as James' proprietory attitude to Autobiography (album). I and others have also done our best to bring the community around to expressing its opinion on James, and this has been very successful. The last time I looked, it appeared that the article was beginning to emerge from a period of schlerosis. This is enough, I think. This is how such disputes should be decided, not by RfC. While James' behavior has at times been highly provocative I do not believe it merits special censure. The result of the dispute should be an object lesson in itself. I commend all editors on their restraint and patience. I think this dispute can be resolved without edit warring and without censure.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 4[edit]

I cannot comment on Ashlee Simpson, not having even heard about her until this dispute came up, being older than the typical user, I suppose. But I can comment on James. He is one of our best and most active contributors to our history and politics articles, where he been traversing for almost a year on an almost daily basis while rarely (if ever) losing his cool. I wish I could say that about myself. Even if he has made some mistakes on this "Autobiography" article (of which I am not convinced), he is a valued contributor with thorough knowledge on the topics that he edits. On balance, this dispute does not diminish that distinction. It is unfair (and probably hurtful) for his critics to overlook that, as evidenced by their one-sided portrayal on this page.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. 172 05:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) (but not to the extent of endorsing anything else that 172 says below, which I think betrays a willingness to launch attacks without investigation) Withdrawing my endorsement, having read more of what 172 has to say. On balance I think 172 has failed to recognise the nature of the dispute. In my opinion it's not about content but editing style. Everyking is an extremely zealous user of the revert, and in my opinion this should be taken into account when viewing the response of other editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. --Deathphoenix 05:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) (but this RfC is specific to Everyking's behaviour regarding Ashlee Simpson articles, see below)
If you read through the comments on the page you will find that people feel the same way you do about Everyking, but think that he is acting bizarrely on anything related to the Ashlee Simpson topic. For example, I have never had any problems in my interaction with him before. There are also very many links provided for you to draw your own conclusions from the facts. silsor 06:25, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto to silsor: I don't think anybody denies that he's a perfectly fine, reasonable editor outside of the Ashlee Simpson Kingdom. I doubt anybody here even wants to see him blocked from editing, save perhaps a temporary restriction on editing these articles in order to give others a chance to do something with them. But he has been acting unreasonably here; his abusive edit summaries alone demonstrate this. →Reene✎ 06:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Re: "people feel... think that he is acting bizarrely on anything related to the Ashlee Simpson topic." Beware the argumentum ad populum. Everyking is difficult position, being outnumbered and concerned with the likely changes to the article if he withdraws from the dispute. Given the limitations in his options that this imposes, his tactics do not seem unreasonable. However, calling his behavior "bizarre" is just deepening a personality feud, leaving the dispute deadlocked. For the dispute to be resolved, the expressions of mutual suspicion should be restrained so that all the parties can carry on with a rational give-and-take. After reading through the comments on the talk page, I suggest seeking mediation and assuming good faith, not Rcf. 172 09:31, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact he has repeatedly displayed intent to revert instead of attempt compromise. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It takes two to revert. Neither side is really innocent here. He has been reverting more often than most of the other individual contributors, while minding the 3RR, just because he is outnumbered. 172 11:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The statement that Everyking has reverted more often solely because he is outnumbered is absolutely and provably false. Until recently, other editors have shown a marked reluctance to revert, but Everyking chose to revert even when other editors were making attempts at compromise. He has reverted as a matter of policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Prove that that generalisation is true in this case, then. Don't let your impression of Everyking from elsewhere influence you here; he's a fine contributor when he's not dealing with Ashlee Simpson, but when he is, he's an asshole who can't get along with people mercilessly editing "his" articles. Even discounting the times Everyking's reverted the reverters, he's still reverted all substantial changes made with the goal of applying the community opinion as determined by the article's three FACs and one peer review listing (let alone all that discussion on the talk). Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: he's an asshole who can't get along with people mercilessly editing "his" articles So long as the 3RR isn't broken, reverting an article will not get you blocked; and reverts are par for the course in a dispute. But calling a user an "asshole" can get you reprimanded. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Re: reverted all substantial changes made with the goal of applying the community opinion Once again, this is an argumentum ad populum. Three or however many FACs does not mean that a single user cannot challenge the prevailing opinion of just about everyone else who has worked on the topic. (Nor is the prevailing opinion on Wikipedia necessarily NPOV. Maybe there is something about typical Wikipedia users that makes them biased against this singer?) I myself have written a few FAs and many more FACs only to have them later challenged by a single editor with some concerns overlooked in the FAC process, and with which I personally disagreed. So, believe me, I can relate to your side on this count. I never enjoyed having to deal the one stubborn editor who went against whatever I wanted to believe was the consensus. However, I did not nor could I gather up all uers who liked my work to get a bunch of people to say, "You are wrong, and because all of us fell this way, we must be right." Instead, I had to stop my work on other articles for several days and iron out eventual compromise versions, whether I liked having to do it or not. In the end, even I could admit that the articles were better because of it, although that would not have been my preferred use of time on Wikipedia. Dealing with people you find difficult may be exhausting and inefficient ordeal; but, for better or for worse, this is the only way that peer editing on Wikipedia can work given the lack of editorial guidelines and a system of content arbitration. 172 20:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyking wasn't always outnumbered, 172, making your argument fallacious. He's been acting like this since my initial scuffle with him, and it was one-on-one for quite some time. Indeed, his "i'll revert you till doomsday" edit summary was made during this period of time. And remember, no matter how "justified" one may feel, personal attacks on Wikipedia are never okay, and are especially frowned upon in edit summaries. →Reene✎ 12:17, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe on some instances he wasn't outnumbered. But denying that he was outnumbered the vast majority of the time is being deliberately obtuse. Re: personal attacks on Wikipedia are never okay That's indeed a factual statement of policy. So, perhaps another user should chronicle all the personal attacks on James just on this page, such as the charming language that I pointed out above, and submit an Rcf against some of his critics... No one here is completely innocent. Please seek mediation and settle your disputes through careful examination of the sources, research, and rational discussion, as opposed to deepening the personality feud. 172 20:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It really only takes one to revert, 172. The pattern on these articles is typically that an edit is made which trims the article, and invariably Everyking then reverts. Re-reverts have been infrequent. Worldtraveller 12:49, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I takes one to revert at first. But if there is a next time, it takes two, and in this dispute there have been many 'next times.' 172 20:17, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm noticing that, throughout all of this, 172 has failed to notice two things: that many of us have worked exhaustively to come to a fair compromise with Everyking only to have every edit reverted in bad faith and that in Wikipedia, majority rules, even if one person feels the majority is grossly incorrect. I would encourage 172, if he feels strongly on this issue, to go to the appropriate talk pages and give his opinions on some of the key issues and problems that are plaguing these articles, hopefully without letting his amor for Everyking get in the way. →Reene✎ 01:12, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

in Wikipedia, majority rules, even if one person feels the majority is grossly incorrect No, it does not. Majority rules in one context and only one context on Wikipedia-- on the Arbitration Committee. Incidentally, I learned this the hard way. Around April or June last year, I rounded up a poll showing that around 30 users did not support the attempt of a single user wno denied that U.S. backing for the coup that brought Pinochet to power in Chile was an indisputable fact. But that did not matter. The single user who insisted on denying the undeniable ended up prevailing after I'd failed to reach a compromise with him, because I had made the mistake of dismissing him as a crank and a troll worthy of a ban or auto-revert instead of a deal. Had that dispute gone to the Arbcom, no one would have cared about who was right or who was wrong. No one would have cared about it being one user versus 30. (The Arbcom does not consider who is in the minority or who is in the majority or weigh in on editorial matters, but rather behavior on like reverts and personal attacks.) I would have faced equally weighty sanctions for having reverted his reverts. In this Ashlee Simpson dispute, such conduct has been evident on your side-- including many personal attacks on James. Therefore, it will behoove you to be cautious about letting this go to Arbitration. 172 02:47, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I see you remain conveniently overlooking all of the personal attacks Everyking has made against other users from the time that the dispute began onward. I've personally restricted my "personal attacks" to mediums outside of Wikipedia where they are not only allowed but appropriate.
I never stated that James has never made personal attacks or that you made personal attacks. Some have, such as one user calling him an "asshole" under this very heading. But I'd rather not get into who said what to whom first. 172 04:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As for your "majority doesn't always rule" argument: how about VfDs? RfCs (commonly used to gauge community consensus on an issue)?
VfDs are a different matter (and they require more than a simple majority). The content of articles has never been decided by "majority rule." This will not be the case unless or until there is a system of editorial arbitration, which I support. Perhaps you'll want to revive that discussion at Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. 172 04:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My point is that what the community thinks is used govern what is and is not included, especially when their side is backed up by solid arguments and the opposition has not managed to refute those arguments (or has refused to acknowledge them entirely). →Reene✎ 03:43, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking says that his side is backed up by solid arguments and that your side is backed up by ad hominems. Which side is correct is not going to be demonstrated by the fallacy of the argumentum ad populum. Instead, it may be brought to light through rational debate on all the specific points of disagreement. I suggest that you try it. 172 04:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's been tried. See Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive1, Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive2, [[Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3], Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive4, FAC nomination 1, FAC nomination 2, FAC nomination 3], Peer review listing, and so on. It hasn't worked. --Carnildo 04:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We have tried. Repeatedly. The fact that you're ignorant to this and other facts goes to show you don't understand or care to understand the dispute or the basis for this dispute. And despite what you may think, community agreement in the face of one dissenter is a pretty good indicator that someone is in the wrong—and the community isn't it. Remember, Wikipedia was built based on a community coming together, coming to agreements and fixing disagreements, etc. Why would it be different here?
That said, I understand why someone would want to back Everyking up. After all, outside of the realm of Ashlee Simpson articles, he can be a very good contributor and is a perfectly reasonable person. However, within the realm of Ashlee Simpson articles, he has proven himself to be the polar opposite, for whatever reason. I would suggest judging him in respect to this situation based on his behavior in respect to this situation, not based on your observations in other areas. →Reene✎ 04:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever. When disputes escalate to this level, everyone starts saying the same thing about each other. I see nothing particularly damning. You guys just seem to be ahead in the game of rallying support. 172 05:37, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that outside of Ashlee Simpson, Everyking is an excellent contributor. I also believe that most people here (including those with whom Everyking has gotten into serious conflict) would agree. However, this RfC is specifically about Everyking's behaviour regarding Ashlee Simpson articles. If we were to look at this entire RfC, however, Everyking does deserve an official notice that he is an excellent contributor outside of the Ashlee Simpson articles, and thus I provide my endorsement. --Deathphoenix 05:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I looked through all the Ashlee Simpson articles and I have little doubt that this is a two-way conflict and that this discussion has been baised against Everyking. Everyking has made his misteps, but I'm not at all impressed with the tendency of his opponents to remove factual content, hoping to counter whatever biases they perceive in his work. On "Pieces of Me," for instance, I found users up in arms about his insertion of factual content, such as the sales charts and the quotations well-integrated into the text-- perfectly fine in and of itself. If they think that he's loading the Simpson articles with too many positive reviews while overlooking the negative ones, then they should add descriptions of the negative reviews, not remove the positive ones. I'm not seeing that they bother to do this. (If someone tried to address an NPOV dispute on one of the history and politics articles by making mass deletions, as opposed to balancing the POV with other POVs by adding content, he'd get strung up in a minute and land himself blocked for vandalism.)

I hope that this isn't taken the wrong way, but frankly the users jumping all over James strike me as a bunch of teenagers picking on him for being a "fanboy," or whatever they call him in chat forums off Wikipedia, and taunting him for coming out on the losing end of what has effectively turned into a popularity contest. (Do we have any high school guidance counselors on Wiki? Maybe they can mediate this dispute?) On the flip side, I'm not entirely biased in James' favor. I hope that he'll finally realize that he has been beaten, fairly or unfairly, for better or for worse, and throw in the towel before they run him out of down and get him barred from contributing to other topics. These bloody Ashee Simpson articles aren't even worth it! He does such great work on the modern history and politics subjects, and, perhaps given my biases in favor of my own subject areas, IMHO it'll be more worthwhile to focus his attention back to these articles. But that's the perspective of someone who hasn't even listened to her music. 172 06:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking's motivations[edit]

"they should add descriptions of the negative reviews" - one of the central problems is that any attempt to modify the articles, whether to add or remove content, results in a swift revert from the 'owner'. The nature and scope of his edits outside of light pop suggest to me that this entire process is some kind of test, proof of concept or otherwise an insincere go at either causing a controversy, or making Wikipedia look ridiculous to the outside world - either as a haven for 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer'-type fans or as a weak, unpoliced liberal anarchy. Alternatively, perhaps he has a craving for the various 'he performs sterling work outside of these articles' comments. Whichever it is, he needs to buck up, pull up his socks, join the army or something. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, and think your reasoning is far too elaborate an explanation for Everyking's behavior. My personal belief regarding his motivation (which is, of course, utterly unprovable, absent mind-reading skills or a personal confession by Everyking) is much simpler: given Everyking's possessive attitude, obsessive editing and endless accumulation of minor detail, massively positive POV, exclusion/downplaying of negative POV, his claim of special knowledge of the subject and his continuing attempts (three, so far) to make [Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)] a Featured article -- well, I think he wants Ashlee to notice him, her Number One Fan. I think he believes that she will be touched by his loyalty and call him up, maybe give him a backstage pass.
Again, an objectively unsupportable belief, but mine own. --Calton 06:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Calton, I beat you by a month on this one ;)
Dec 14 01:59:46 <silsor> I think I figured out why Everyking is working so hard on Pieces of Me and Autobiography
Dec 14 02:00:08 <silsor> he's hoping that Ashlee Simpson herself will notice
silsor 06:56, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've thought this was true for awhile, but didn't want to say anything for fear of setting Everyking off. But when this gets written up for the psychology journals, you get first credit. --Calton 21:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Everyking&oldid=1168077795"