Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Closed as of 23 January 2005

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority aye vote will be enacted.
  • Items that receive a majority nay vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority aye or nay vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.
  • Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he/she would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

On this case, 2 arbitrators are recused and one is inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit]

Revert limitation

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:31, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 13:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 00:38, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Though I'd phrase it more strongly - see below.
  5. mav 23:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) (see my comments below)
  6. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  7. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 00:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:52, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
  3. Fred Bauder 02:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 02:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 23:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Second choice: after reading the Statement of complaint, the RfC on Everyking, and seeing the edit history of Ashlee Simpson I do not think that anything less than a ban on editing this article will do. But I'm still voting here just in case item 3 does not pass.)
  6. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) (2nd choice; same reasons as mav.)
  7. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:
[edit]

3) Pending resolution of this matter, Everyking is banned from editing Ashlee Simpson and any article relating to Ashlee Simpson or containing material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Should this be violated, Everyking may be blocked for up to 24 hours. Should he use the admin rollback feature to edit such articles while blocked or otherwise use his admin user rights to evade a block, he may be de-adminned for the duration of the case.

Aye:
  1. mav 23:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Everyking's edit history at Ashlee Simpson shows a pattern of just a few edits per day that restore disputed content. So I do not think that an edit limit will work here - an edit ban is therefore in order.)
  2. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) (Agree with mav.)
    David Gerard 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) Second choice, but not excessive in the circumstances.
    Neutralitytalk 00:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fred Bauder 14:58, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No; the above require enough consideration of edits that this is unnecessary. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:33, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  2. Actually, having chatted to Everyking about this (user talk:David Gerard), I think one edit a day should be enough - David Gerard 08:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ditto David. Neutralitytalk 16:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Proposed principles

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Ownership of articles

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:31, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 02:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:59, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 07:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Consensus

[edit]

2) Editors of Wikipedia are expected to abide by consensus when making edits.

Aye:
Grunt 🇪🇺 19:31, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:58, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. mav 07:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No such policy Wikipedia:Consensus Fred Bauder 02:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Um hmmm, it isn't a policy actually. They are expected to convince, though.
  3. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) (Although there is a strong bias in favor of doing so.)
  4. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. I still believe there is a valid policy in there somewhere, but this is not the way to go about wording it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:09, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Abstain:

Status of administrators

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:31, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 02:12, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:57, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Everyking is a Wikipedia administrator

[edit]

1) Everyking is a Wikipedia administrator.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:44, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Readily apparent; not sure why this needs to be voted on. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I don't see the point in this FoF though)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) - agree with Mav - seems pointless
Nay:
Abstain:

Everyking's liberal view of the three-revert rule

[edit]

2) Everyking has interpreted the three-revert rule in a liberal way and has aggressively engaged in editing which has resulted in his being blocked for violation of it [1].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:44, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:56, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Rollback feature

[edit]

3) Blocked for 24 hours for violations of the 3 revert rule, Everyking continued to use the rollback feature to revert vandalism available to him as a Wikipedia administrator [2].

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:22, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Though it's not clear whether this is actually a violation of admin powers - the devs regard the ability to roll back while blocked as a feature, not a bug. He hasn't so far used it on the articles in dispute, though, as far as I'm aware.
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (echo David)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Interest in Ashlee Simpson

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I added 'apparent' since none of us can look into his head)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Edit warring with respect to Ashlee Simpson

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:03, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) It's not the detail - detail is good, m:Wiki is not paper - but it's the aggression
  5. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  7. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  8. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Everyking's good conduct

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 19:26, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)
  2. An extremely good editor. Neutralitytalk 02:55, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 07:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) (most definitely)
  7. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed decision

[edit]

Remedies

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Reapplication for adminship

[edit]

1) Everyking is required to reapply for adminship per procedures on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Should the reapplication not succeed, Everyking shall have his administrative priviledges removed.

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 01:56, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Neutralitytalk 02:51, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) (Don't see misuse of admin privileges besides the rollback, which is addressed below.)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) - overkill
  5. No finding of fact supports this, his rollbacks while blocked are a trivial offense. Fred Bauder 17:57, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  6. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

Revert limitation

[edit]

2) Everyking is limited to one revert, partial or full, per twenty-four hour period on articles relating to Ashlee Simpson, with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule.

Aye:
Grunt 🇪🇺 01:56, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC) Prefer revert limitation. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:08, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  1. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'll agree to this, but see 2.1 for a more weaseling-proof version.
  2. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) - David makes a valid point. Given Everyking's gaming the system when it comes to reverts, I accept that admins may be liberal in their interpretation of what constitutes a revert. →Raul654 19:08, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. The game needs to stop completely Fred Bauder 18:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
    We can still benefit from Everyking's knowledge of the subject as long as the fanatical edit war mentality is kept under control. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 18:06, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:51, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) (not enough)
Abstain:
  1. Prefer the weasel-proof version 2.1. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC) Going to go with 2.2 below. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:50, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

2.1) Everyking is limited to one edit of any sort per twenty-four hour period on articles relating to Ashlee Simpson or containing material on Ashlee Simpson, with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule.

Aye:
  1. David Gerard 08:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delirium 00:42, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
    Grunt 🇪🇺 01:00, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. Neutralitytalk 01:20, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Prefer revert limitation. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:08, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 06:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. The game needs to stop completely Fred Bauder 18:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:

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

Aye:
  1. Grunt 🇪🇺 02:45, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 02:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutralitytalk 05:25, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) I've added the words "as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism" for absolute clarity on this point
  5. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Since no period was added, I added the max we can impose)
Nay:
  1. The game needs to stop completely Fred Bauder 23:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
Clarification by arbitrators
[edit]
  • It is my opinion that any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see (what links to Ashlee Simpson) is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article. Fred Bauder 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • If Ashlee Simpson-related material is put into an article, it is to that extent related to Ashlee Simpson. That's the standard a rough consensus (with some queries) of the admins applied to CheeseDreams and Jesus/Christianity-related material - David Gerard 14:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • We should not narrowly define "related to Ashlee Simpson," and it should be broadly interpreted by administrators. Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related. The intent is to restrict him, not give him a change to win the game. ➥the Epopt 15:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • That's precisely my thinking. This is an attempt to game the spirit of the ruling with an interpretation that I would think was beyond reasonable doubt - David Gerard 17:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with David's, Epopts, and Fred's intrepretations, although I think Fred's explanation is the most clear. →Raul654 19:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The intent of the ruling, in my view, is to prevent the overzealous reversion of material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Administrators should be capable of determining when such an action is taking place and act appropriately. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:05, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
  • I concur with the above comments. Neutralitytalk 01:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

2.3) Everyking is prohibited from editing articles relating to Ashlee Simpson for one year.

Aye:
  1. Fred Bauder 23:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
  1. No. There's valuable contributions in there, somewhere. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:54, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 02:33, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  3. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. I'm not sure about this one. Being prohibited from anything that's a revert at all and using the talk pages to convince others should be sufficient - David Gerard 00:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lifting the revert parole

[edit]

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

Aye:
  1. →Raul654 03:03, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutralitytalk 05:25, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Grunt 🇪🇺 15:35, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 00:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 04:11, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
Abstain:

Enforcement

[edit]

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

Template

[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit]

General

[edit]

Motion to close

[edit]

Four Aye votes needed to close case

# Everything likely to pass has passed; I also feel we have reached the heart of the problem with the revert limitation above (Remedy 2). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC) Significant opposition has arisen to this motion. I am withdrawing it. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:48, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
New motion
  1. All items that were close to passing have now passed except for proposed remedy 2, which in addition to be being opposed by 3 members is superseded by 2.2 (which has a majority to pass and only 1 opposed vote). --mav 04:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. I agree. Grunt 🇪🇺 04:25, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
  3. Ditto. Neutralitytalk 04:27, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 04:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking/Proposed_decision&oldid=808010467"