Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Everyking

Gaming the system
Everyking is accused of gaming the system, specifically, violating the spirit of the three revert rule while staying just within its technical limitations. The intent of the three revert rule isn't to explicitly allow people to revert articles exactly three times in every 24 hour period. Here are some edit summaries from Everyking: Rhobite 20:36, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * "i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime"
 * "i'll hold on to my third revert for a while. in the meantime, restore chart and sales data"
 * "ho hum. that would be a revert for you, reene, but not for me. let's try incorporating a little bit of my sales/chart data but cutting the last portion short"
 * "i've had two [reverts]. anyway, i'm restoring the deleted singles section"
 * "if i can't revert, at least let me fix this"


 * The last of those was my fix of a grammatical error, for God's sake. Everyking 21:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The important part isn't the edit, it's your statement of "if i can't revert". It demonstrates that you would revert everyone else's changes, regardless of consensus, if you were allowed to. Rhobite 21:32, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Length of the statement of the dispute
Can we possibly trim down the "statement of the dispute" section? It's huge! (Which is somewhat ironic, isn't it?) Dbenbenn 21:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been quite some dispute!Dr Zen 00:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposed solution
The problem is that James has obstructed editing. I don't think this is typical behaviour for him. It's very odd. If I couldn't see that he was otherwise a good and dedicated editor, I would have assumed he was trolling me when I dealt with him. His passion for defending acres of bumf bordered on the demented. The editors involved are largely known to me as reasonable editors, even those whose viewpoints I don't share on one thing or another.

I've proposed to James a solution on his Autobiography promotion article. After Jan. 15, he has promised not to edit the article, which will allow other editors to make edits unobstructed. He can bring suggestions to talk and I have undertaken to watch talk and add updates if he brings them, edited if I see fit.

I propose that we consider this solution for at least the spinoff articles, and if James is willing, the main article. James swears off them (at least for a period) and brings suggestions to talk. Other editors can edit unobstructed. I would urge them to be sensitive to James's core concerns -- that information is not lost and that the article is edited sensitively.

If James agrees, makes a promise and then breaks it, in any way, I will personally list him for arbitration, much as that would pain me. In a community that works on assuming good faith, you have to be able to trust that someone will do what they say.

I think that James should accept this deal because he is on a one-way track to severe sanction and he hasn't lived up to his own standards on this article. A break would definitely be good. Perhaps he would be pleased with the outcome.

I think that the other editors should accept a deal because even though James has ruffled feathers, he's not a villain, and no one should want to see disputes degenerate into arbitration if there is any alternative.

Comments?Dr Zen 00:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not like to have to agree to things with arbitration pointed like a gun to my head, but if the other participants in the dispute will agree to significantly moderate their deletionism on the article, discuss individual points and include me in a consensus, I will agree to swear off reverts on the article. That would not include partial restorations of content. Everyking 01:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope. What I propose is that you do not edit the articles at all, not that you accept a revert parole. In any case, if your revert parole allowed you to "restore" content, what would it actually serve?


 * You do not have a "gun to your head", James. I'm appealing to your intelligence. You know that you are breaching the community's norms and you know you'll be sanctioned. I'm trying to find a way of avoiding that and allowing you input to the article but at the same time recognising that you will not edit within the norms.Dr Zen 04:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why can I not edit the article in wholly uncontroversial ways? The fact remains that I have added nearly all of the content myself, and hardly anyone else has added anything. Everyking 06:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you can't, James, but you certainly have proved unable. Editing is not just "adding material". It also involves shaping and making best use of the material.Dr Zen 23:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That "information is not lost" is one of the major points of contention, that is, how much of the current article text is genuinely informative. For chunks to remain inclued, there is going to have to be a plausible case made that they will inform the reader.  That really has to be the primary consideration regardless of how much time was spent compiling article sections. iMeowbot~Mw 01:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * This deal isn't good enough. "That would not include partial restorations of content" isn't something I'd agree with, and I suspect others wouldn't either.  Note that this edit would probably count as a "partial" restoration.  Dbenbenn 02:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's nothing like what I proposed. I think James must step back and let others edit. I think he should try to influence the process but take no actual part in it. This doesn't have to be permanent (although "not working" on the article includes not keeping a temp version either in his user space or elsewhere). I know it's harsh but he's sliding towards a ban anyway. The arbcom has recent precedents for revert warriors' being barred from particular article areas. I'd hate to see James face that.Dr Zen 04:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate forcing people off from editing articles, that is what Everyking has been doing ever since he placed it on FAC. I would accept this solution, but the problem here is that there is no available compromise; either appearance X is noteworthy enough for a mention, or it's not. Either a play-by-play zigzagging description of chart movement is valid for inclusion, or it's not. I find it hard to believe that so many editors have worked on this article and that yet none of them has edited the article to an acceptable compromise. Finding common ground with Everyking would be great, but the problem here is that he continues to make unreasonable demands. While "converting" him would be very nice, I fear that's impossible. I'm willing to give this a go, though. Johnleemk | Talk 05:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a new proposal to make: I will agree to take "off-weeks" from editing the article. For example, if everyone agrees to it, I will step back from the article and let others revise it to their hearts' content for seven days, and I'll spend that time reflecting on the revisions and considering worthwhile compromises. After that, I'll be free to edit the article again for a week, but without the use of any blanket reverts. I will consider it an exception from the off-week to add an important factual update when I can reasonably expect this addition to be uncontroversial. I believe the other side should reciprocate by voting to keep Autobiography promotion and publicity, which I have agreed to stop editing entirely after Jan. 15. Everyking 06:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't accept that. You'll then spend your week reverting most changes made because you consider them radical deletionism and worthless nonsense. This is just delaying how long until you can revert again. Furthermore, this should have no effect on VfD; an article's worthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia should not be decided by any factor other than its encyclopedic value. As such, I cannot accept this "compromise". Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No way.Dr Zen 23:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It plainly says no blanket reverts. I think the other side should swear off reverts as well, but since they're the majority I can live with it if they don't. Everyking 10:17, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, "You'll then spend your week reverting most changes made because you consider them radical deletionism and worthless nonsense." You've been dodging the 3RR like this for ages with these semi-reverts. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I reserve the right to partially restore content, but I will pledge to be moderate and gradual in doing this and I will try to rework text to be agreeable to both sides if I can think of a way. If I'm going to make that concession, however, I believe a similar sort of pledge would be helpful from the other side, as well as keep votes on the present VfD. Everyking 12:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * No. "Partially restore content" sounds like "revert everything bit by bit" to me.Dr Zen 23:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You mean as moderate and gradual as you've been when dealing with Dbenbenn, Worldtraveller and Rhobite recently? Somehow based on past experience, I'm not buying this. It's just way too subjective; what constitutes "moderate and gradual"? I have this feeling our definitions will disagree again, just like our definitions of "vandalism" and poor quality edits differ. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Assume good faith, John. I'll do the same for you. Everyking 12:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been tripped up too many times by that mistake with you. I've kept quiet and hoped you would resolve things amicably, but all you seem to know how to do is to revert other editors. Assume good faith this time after doing it so many times before? No sirree. I won't be doing it again where you're a participant, at least if the subject is related to Ashlee Simpson. After all, you are the person who responded to "Your arrogance is suffocating. Everyone has equal rights, so nobody has the right to exclude you, but you have no right to exclude anyone else either. On the other hand, you seem to think that every edit must pass muster on the talk page first, preferably your muster. That's not how things work. If this keeps up, I recommend a revert moratorium — nobody reverts anyone without discussing it and getting consensus first on the talk page," with "Your insult is duly noted. You are in good company with Reene and Rick here." Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, what more can I do? Everyking 16:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've suggested a mechanism for you to have influence. I'm afraid your insistence on not compromising over these articles is going to lead you to an end you'll thoroughly regret. Suggesting there's nothing more you can do will expedite your path to that end. Dr Zen 23:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no sense in what you say, Zen. If I wanted to throw in the towel completely, I could just say I won't restore any more information or revert anybody, I'll just reword things as necessary and update and expand in what I think are uncontroversial ways. Before I do that, though, I would like to get the other people involved in this engaged in a dialogue that would hopefully lead to a reasonable compromise. Everyking 23:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What would be reasonable would be for you to allow other editors to edit as they see fit. That you have not done and do not appear willing to do that are why we are here.Dr Zen 04:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good faith question
From a complete outsider 1 hour ago.

Starting with one information. In his user talk page diff 08:44, 6 Jan 2005 Everyking says ...So I've compiled a short list of red links on subjects that I think should have articles&mdash;perhaps I will add more to the list soon&mdash;but which I expect would meet some strong opposition from many Wikipedia deletionists.....

A few opinions now. It looks to me that Everyking wanted to make a point or test the WP system. He says he knows he'll create controversial fan, too detailed, stuff. He announces where (like Autobiography song, Autobiography critical reception and reviews). And he does it. These are some article now in the galaxy of one recent album only Autobiography (album): Autobiography promotion and publicity, La La (song), Shadow (song), Pieces of Me, Autobiography sales and chart positions... All of them passionately detailed. Generating, as he predicted, a rather enormous amount of unproductive noise (including my comment). It looks to me like deliberate - as explained by him on his talk page - disruptive contributions to make a point.

It does me not give a feeling of good faith.

It is notable that even a 50 edits (according Everyking, I did not check) newbee identifies some of this contribs as way off the reasonable. So is seams to be pretty bold.

Popping here and there, is the recurrent traditional question about the majority can be wrong. The recurrent traditional answer is ''Yes. Nonetheless that is how it works here and one is not free to go against the consensus.''

Summary. It is - deliberate - disruptive - repeated - bold. Everyking is not a newbee (I discovered it on his talk page: an admin having asked for arbitration role). The only scenario I can imagine is Everyking is running a scholar study on WP. Kind of social interactions studies. Or... it's all together a huge hoax and some lads, somewhere, are having a good laugh. In that case, it's a costly hoax!

Gtabary 19:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The list of red links is a reaction to the controversy. You have the cause and effect mixed up. Everyking 20:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And anyway, the list, which is only about a week old, is there to encourage others to write articles. But listing them I have specifically disclaimed the task of writing them myself. Do you think I wrote all that, did all that research, just to test the system? No one even cared about the article besides me for months after I created it. Yes, I want Wikipedia to be an inclusive project, but I don't see how that desire can be interpreted as being malicious. Everyking 20:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't buy this. Everyking is too rounded an editor, too good and conscientious to be an act.  I think we all have our foibles, and Ashlee is his. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to be as skeptical as Tony, but I view this as speculating too much on too little information. I won't assume bad faith just yet, but I can't assume good faith with Everyking anymore where Ashlee Simpson is related. He may be editing in good faith, but everything else about the article(s) in his "kingdom" as Silsor put it is clearly done in bad faith. I'm beginning to give up hope; Everyking has not accepted Dr Zen's attempt at brokering a deal, and he is still indiscriminately reverting. I don't think Tony's outside view on the RfC page is correct; Everyking continues to work against community opinion, except now he hides it even more because he's aware the community disapproves of it. Johnleemk | Talk 09:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that Everyking seems to be consciously manipulative in his response to criticism. It is a fact that he openly and avowedly games the system. But I reject the thesis that he's doing this as a dispassionate project; rather, I think he's so close to the subject emotionally that he justifies his manipulativeness, perhaps as a way of countering what he sees as a bias in the system against popular culture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either that or he's doing a personal experiment on how far a POV pusher can go to make an article that is all their own. Perhaps we shouldn't assume motives and should deal only with the outward expression?Dr Zen 23:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * POV pusher? C'mon, even you must admit that the article is reasonably NPOV. Not perfect, maybe, but to call me a POV pusher is absurd. Everyking 23:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I count 12 positive (or spun as such) reviews versus about 5 negative ones. Now, I don't know about you, but in the part of Wikipedia I come from we call that "biased POV". &rarr;Reene&#9998; 00:50, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Where I come from, we call that "15 reviews too many". Try trimming it to the most significant positive review, the most significant negative review, and a summary of what the reviews are saying. --Carnildo 02:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't seem too terribly POV to me, but the articles are rather bloated with excessive quotes and sub-trivial information. --Carnildo 01:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"It would be a tragic loss to humankind were this article cut" is a POV, James. That the material in the article is of any value is a POV. The assumption that every utterance of Ashlee Simpson is of interest is a POV. You're quacking like one, James, so don't be surprised if someone yells "duck".Dr Zen 02:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you misunderstand my position, Zen. It's not that I don't believe it could be cut. I myself have appreciated some of the edits that have reduced quoting in favor of succinct summarizing, for example. Everyking 10:59, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What I most enjoy when I discuss things with you, James, is trying to imagine myself into a state of mind where your comments would be possible.Dr Zen 06:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that the reviews should be cut entirely. They should all remain at least in the infobox, and quotes should be used to make any useful points about the album. The fact that more are positive than negative is not a problem, it is a statement of fact. Outside reviews are the most NPOV aspect to include. Tuf-Kat 22:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * However, as someone else pointed out, some of these reviews are being spun as positive when they're not or could go either way. Attempts to remedy this have been...well, you know, I'm tired of typing that word. That many reviews is unnecessary, as well, and is only serving to add to the bloat and unreadability of the article. There are also several that are uncited as I brought up in my initial cleanup of the article (saying "X magazine said" isn't the same thing as actually citing the magazine) which continue to go unfixed. &rarr;Reene&#9998; 03:09, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Every review is cited. Every review has been characterized to the best of my ability. Name the ones you feel do not meet these two criteria. Everyking 08:19, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I refuse to be drawn into this with you again. Try reading over the talk page of the article in question, particularly the archive that contains the detailed list of extensive changes I had made to the article. &rarr;Reene&#9998; 08:38, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that these issues should be fixed. Tuf-Kat 08:12, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)