Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Commentary from original request 2 Why was this accepted? 3 A request 4 Involvement

[edit] Commentary from original request

None of the prior steps in the dispute resolution process have been followed. I believe I have followed the ruling and as I have seen others, such as Snowspinner, dispute this, I have become even more cautious to accommodate them. I will be happy to mediate the matter with Snowspinner. If he does get his way in this, it will be the end of my time at Wikipedia. Everyking 23:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I should point out that none of Snowspinner's "evidence" are actual reverts as he is presenting them. In each case the circumstances are ambiguous; one could interpret them as reverts, as he does (if one has a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a revert), or one could not (if one has a conservative interpretation).

Moreover, the claim that I dismiss those who disagree with me is preposterous. I have conceded points repeatedly and have always emphasized the importance of compromise, of concessions from both sides and, most importantly, reasonable discussion to sort out of the facts of the matter as logically as possible. Everyking 00:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everyking gave me his word, and also promised me that he would not make any remotely controversial edits related to Ashlee Simpson for some time to come. I'm disappointed. He has let us all down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous. It did not even occur to me at the time that someone would see it as a revert. You ought to look at the situation. Everyking 01:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Previously the case was accepted without going through mediation. Will the same thing happen again? It seems highly irrational to pursue arbitration when I am open to compromise and concessions about anything. Everyking 13:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner is already involved in 3 other arb com cases at the time. Instead of assuming good faith, and trying to work out a case amicably, for instance through mediation, he instead seems to intentionally get involved in conflict and arbitration. This harassment has gotten out of control. I'd like the committee to bar snowspinner from requesting an arbitration case without first trying mediation. anthony 警告 15:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite true; Snowspinner is very concerned with imposing punitive measures on people, for reasons that I do not fully understand. This is a plain case where a form of resolution agreeable to all would be fairly easy to accomplish, since I am willing to concede just about anything and accept consensus even if I disagree with it. Nevertheless, Snowspinner wants me banned from editing these articles even though I am at present the only person who writes substantially on the subject and updates the information. It is hard for me to see the logic.

As for Grunt, I should point out that characterizing any of this as a block/unblock war is a bit extreme. Blocks have been disagreed with by other admins, yes, and I have been unblocked. But surely a user should not be subject to the tyranny of one admin, such as Snowspinner, who has openly (on IRC) stated his ill-will towards me. Surely another admin who is more tolerant or reasonable should be able to undo the block. This is a system that maintains balance and fairness—an overzealous admin like Snowspinner can be kept in check by cooler heads.

Finally, I want to say that if this is accepted, my previous case should be reconsidered and the ArbCom should consider the possibility of removing the old restrictions it imposed. Everyking 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think these are reasonable requests, however I would prefer that my conduct be considered as a separate case, and thus have listed a request for arbitration against myself above. Snowspinner 16:29, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

It may also say something about the nature of the case, although perhaps not directly relevant, that Snowspinner has banned me from the IRC channel for life because I criticized him for the authoritarian behavior I consider this case to represent. Everyking 01:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he was gloating about this on IRC. I find it strange that there is no due process whatsoever for bans made on IRC. anthony 警告 01:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IRC is not an official channel, but rather is run by Fennec. It has no official connection to the Wikimedia foundation or this site. For what it's worth, Fennec agreed with me on the block, which is not "for life" but rather "indefinite." It will get lifted, I am sure, next time the blocks are being cleared out. And it did not come without considerable warning. Not that any of this is at issue, since the arbcom explicitly disclaims jurisdiction over IRC. Snowspinner 03:27, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why was this accepted?

Could the arbitrators who voted accept explain their reasoning? Why was this not instead referred to mediation? Everyking 15:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A request

I would like to note that, although the stated penalty in the precedent section of the arbcom page for defying an arbcom ruling is a year ban, that I think Everyking's positive contributions sufficiently outweigh his Ashlee edits so as to be worth softening the blow. I ask specifically that no non-Ashlee bans be implemented, and that if Everyking is sent to reapply for admin status, an explicit provision be put into the ruling that would allow him to retain admin status with a lower than normal vote threshold. Snowspinner 21:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

The notion that I have defied an ArbCom ruling is simply laughable. Simply because some other admins choose to interpret what I do in a certain way does not mean it's so. There has not been a single case of an edit made by me since January that could be considered a revert of an Ashlee article by everyone, since what are being called "reverts" are things such as restoring a portion of text in an attempt at compromise or removing a link that was just one small portion of someone else's edit (unless you count the SNL articles and Oct. 24, which were outright reverts, but I stopped reverting those after the clarification). Certainly I have never consciously or intentionally reverted. Everyking 22:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement

As I was the last one to unblock Everyking, I will be monitoring this case. If my testimony is needed, please notify me on my talk page. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 05:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)