User:Johnleemk/Autobiography dispute

This page covers some facts and statistics of a long-running dispute over Autobiography (album); I have no desire to restate what has been hashed out again and again, so this is all I can give: facts and statistics. Other users are welcome to edit this page since I don't think I will be maintaining it much; just don't delete what has already been put on this page unless it has been proven to be factually inaccurate. Statements of the dispute would probably be better off elsewhere, since this page is for facts, not opinions. Those interested in the history of this dispute can always see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking, Talk:Autobiography (album), Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Everyking and assorted talk pages for the main article's spawned children.

Edit counts (from peer review)[edit]

As of 03:08, 13 Dec 2004, there have been 554 edits (counting the original creation of the article), inflating the article to 38K in size. The article was created on 26 Jul 2004, 140 days ago, giving an average of just under 4 edits per day, though that was not spread out evenly:

July: 3
August: 16
September: 13
October: 40
November: 356
December: 125

Of the 554 edits, 496 (or 89.5%) have been by Everyking.

Thirty-two users performed the remaining 58 edits -- although since two of each were the leveling and then lifting of protection, I'll discount those, making 30 users performing 56 edits. Reene had the highest single number at 13 edits.

Of those 56 other edits, 29 were reverted by Everyking (25 completely and 4 partially) -- over half of non-Everyking edits. This includes the removal of at least 4 tags (peerreview and clean-up), and involved at least four violations of the 3-revert rule (including an astonishing 8 reversions in 2 hours on 26 November).

These are the numbers as best as I could reconstruct them: I leave out the details concerning bad faith, insults, refusals to engage in discussons, professions of injured innocence, and lack of perspective regarding the notability -- or non-notability -- of this article and the details Everyking choses to insert. I assert that Everyking needs to step back and let go, because his behavior regarding this article and anything connected demonstrates his complete lack of perspective on this issue and on the general purpose of Wikipedia. --Calton 12:40, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right, well, we disagree, Calton. Have you considered that the reason that I have made the vast majority of the edits is because, well, I'm really the only one here who knows much of anything about the subject, or at least the only one who has bothered to contribute his knowledge? Virtually all of my reversions were of content removal. I have left alone, and in fact welcomed, the content additions, which mainly occurred early in the article history with the addition of the infobox and then later on the table formats. Everyking 07:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The users involved[edit]

The following explicitly refuse to edit Autobiography (album) except for reverting vandalism:

The following edited Autobiography (album) making constructive edits at one point or another, and discussed certain issues on the talk page, but have since stopped editing the article without stating a reason:

In addition, the following discussed certain issues on the talk, including but not limited to critiquing rewrites of the article:

The following users also participated in editing and/or discussing the spawned articles of Autobiography (album):

The following users took a wikibreak or vacation shortly after halting editing of the article:

The following user was nearly driven away from Wikipedia:

Everyking

All editors listed above disagreed with Everyking on certain matters, most commonly the article's content and Everyking's reversions, except Everyking himself (of course) and Shard.

Selected quotes from the talk and archives[edit]

None are provided by me, Johnleemk | Talk, but others are welcome to add their favourites. Having reviewed the discussions, I find too much of salient importance to fit on this page. I will provide a couple of my favourites which are the most recent ones, though:

Your decision to go to subarticles is a symptom of your apparent inability to edit this piece properly or permit anybody else to do so. As I've got plenty of other things that I can edit more productively, and people who are far more cooperative that you are, I am abandoning my attempts to edit Autobiography. It isn't worth the bother. This article will never make it to FA until you are prepared to show some maturity and let other people edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then why is your solution to the problems reverting? You err on the side of keeping your edits; I err on the side of deferring to others. That's why I haven't bothered to revert you and I don't revert edits I don't like to articles I had a heavy hand in writing just because I don't like them. Jgm in particular trimmed A Day in the Life and The Long and Winding Road, something I was not very happy about but did not revert. I had a vigorous argument with Drbalaji md on Coca-Cola, but reverted only edits without anything of value in them which were quite rare from him. Instead, I tried to incorporate his changes into the article. You seem more interested in preserving your work, assuming that just because it's been there for so long, it's better to err on its side than on the side of someone else's edit. I repeat: Blanket reverting an edit with good changes in it instead of fixing the bad changes is not a solution to any dispute. Johnleemk | Talk 04:42, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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. Everyking 04:53, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If an edit isn't outright vandalism or utterly destroys an article's formatting, reversion should be the last resort. Jimbo calls a revert "a slap in the face". I didn't make any drastic fuck-ups (although perhaps another editor would be a better judge), but thanks for the slap anyway. Johnleemk | Talk 05:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I incorporated what I thought was useful in the edit. It wasn't a blanket revert as you claim. Everyking 05:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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? Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this. "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" 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 Sidaway Talk 10:17, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Christ almighty, I'm sorry I didn't spend quite as much time on it as I should have. You act like a revert is the crime of the century. Everyking 10:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your use of wholesale reverts on articles relating to Ashlee Simpson is damaging, in my opinion. I think you should step back for a few weeks and see what happens without your constantly squatting over the pot like this. You might be surprised at the quality of the work. Don't you ever want to see this article make FA? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure I do, Tony, and I'm confident it soon will be. It could get there sooner with your help, I believe. But what good would it do to exclude me from the editing? You said you hadn't even heard of Ashlee before, didn't you? I think we're better off working cooperatively. Everyking 11:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I won't edit this article again because it would be, as before, a complete and utter waste of time to try even a fraction of the kind of reformatting this article would need to bring it up to Wikipedia standard. You just revert it all. That is not cooperation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In what way do you feel it falls short of Wikipedia standards? If you're not willing to edit yourself, if you'd explain your complaints to me perhaps I could fix them for you. Everyking 12:21, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have a question. Why does one song from one album by a random pop star deserve an entire (and rather lengthy) article? Shouldn't something like this go on the album's page? Reene (リニ) 08:49, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

No, because the album page is already filled to maximum capacity. Everyking 09:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please define "maximum capacity". There are much, much longer articles on Wikipedia. This could easily be put on that page. So I ask again, why does this have its own article? Reene (リニ) 09:27, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are longer articles, but there aren't really supposed to be. It's a guideline that you don't let an article grow past 32KB (unless it's a list), and Autobiography (album) is at that size now. Everyking 09:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guideline, not a hard rule.

Hey, tell you what, if it bothers you that much I'll go do some snipping at the main article, merge this one with it, and make this a redirect. I'll go do that right now actually. Reene (リニ) 09:50, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing. Everyking 09:53, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Note: All of the above comments were made prior to any editing to either of the articles by Reene)

I am being perfectly civil. But there is only so much I can do. One can't make concessions all day long, or by the end of the day one has nothing left. I am absolute on the point that in a dispute changes should be moderate and gradual, and I will stick to that point. I will accept one element of Reene's edit, any portion she chooses, provided she restores the rest. Otherwise there can be no discussion. Everyking 23:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyking, your latest revert read "is this what I get for spending all that time creating a compromise version?" Well, I'm wondering the exact same thing. Seemingly without even reading over or responding to any of the things I posted here in the spirit of compromise, understanding, and mediation, you reverted all of my edits, making decrees as though they were final and somehow spoke for everybody while accusing me of being "nothing more than a troll" and saying I was attempting to "destroy" everything you've done to the article. I don't think this attitude is a benefit to Wikipedia at all, and I'm sure you'll agree. In fact, all of these things have been quite hurtful to me as an editor and as a person. In the spirit of Mergism, I've re-added a snip of the text that was reverted, leaving the rest of your edits to the article alone. I do not believe what you claimed to be a "compromise" before was really a compromise at all- telling another editor, an equal, that they must do this or else is nothing short of an ultimatum and once again, that kind of attitude is harmful to the Wikipedia as a whole. Now, I think all of this has arisen from the fact that we're both defensive of our work and our opinions. That's fine, but in this case it's been taken too far. I'd like to once again ask that we both take a short break from all of the articles in question and come back when we've had time to cool off. I hope you will at least acknowledge my request this time. Reene (リニ) 01:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well, we can discuss things on the basis of gradual edits, taken one stage at a time, as is necessary in any dispute such as this. I do consider your edits destructive—very much so—and I am unable to think of a motive for it besides a plain dislike for Ashlee Simpson. But of course, your motive really has nothing to do with anything, I suppose. The point is that you're not making worthwhile edits to the article, and you don't seem prepared to discuss them moderately as I've repeatedly requested. Everyking 01:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It 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. I'd also note that the 3RR now has teeth as the proposal passed, so I'd be careful about violating it, as you can now be banned for doing so. I don't want to see you banned, but if you keep reverting the article, sooner or later someone is bound to take notice and ban you. Shane King 02:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because my reverts haven't been destructive. They've been restoring information. Same as if someone blanked the page and I reverted it thirty times. Of course I know about the 3RR rule enforcement, but I voted against it myself, so I take no blame for that, if it is indeed judged to have passed. Everyking 02:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm certain your perception of the reverts is that you are justified. However, I once again ask you review the comments that have been left on this page concerning the section currently in question. Overwhelming opinion is that the truncated/cited version is generally more palatable and should be kept. Then I also ask that you read the paragraph I posted just above. I'm extending an olive branch here; it is entirely your choice as to whether or not you will take it or torch it. Reene (リニ) 02:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you take one of the many olive branches I've extended since this whole thing began? I refuse to accept that all of my compromises, from an editor who actually knows the subject and cares about it, are to be ignored and substituted for a "compromise" that would only do the article harm. That's unacceptable. And do you remember the time I suggested we start over on a new leaf and you responded with terse rudeness? Revert your edit, choose one thing you'd like to discuss, and from there we can proceed on a basis of civility. Everyking 03:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you are knowledgable and care deeply about the subject matter is a handicap here, something I am not sure you realize. And while I'm sure you perceive my changes as "harmful", "destructive", or "wrecking" the article, overwhelming consensus still says that they are actually an improvement on the article. I do not respond well to snideness, ultimatums, demands, or threats; this is no exception. I will not revert my edit. It is, after all, "one element" of my edit- and wasn't one of your proposed "compromises" that I choose "one element" of my total original edit while leaving the rest alone? That is what I have done. "Your" article is still for the most part yours. Reene (リニ) 03:10, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be keeping an eye on my clock for when the allotted time rolls around. I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long. Everyking 05:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant a small portion. Something manageable. Reword one sentence, remove one quote. You can still do that. That's one compromise. Another compromise is to revert to my previous version, which was itself tailored as a compromise, and leave it at that. A third option is to revert to that version and then we can start to "think outside the box" about ways to work on the article without cutting out good quotes and factual info. Those are the three options on the table. Everyking 03:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Selected edit summaries[edit]

From Autobiography (album)[edit]

Everyking:

(what on earth are you people thinking? i'll revert you till doomsday, i recorded that data week by week as it happened)
(no, no. make your changes one at a time if you want to do this, and you must do what i said and discuss things on talk before acting. i can't deal with all this at once.)
(in a dispute such as this i have every reason to expect changes to be moderate and gradual. i made that promise for myself on talk)
(pile 'em on. removing information from an article is plain vandalism, after being asked to discuss and compromise countless times)
(→About the songs - fix the most outrageous problem with this paragraph. i may only get three reverts, but i get to make endless little tweaks to your nonsense in the meantime)
(→Sales and chart success - i'll hold on to my third revert for a while. in the meantime, restore chart and sales data)
(rv, john can make his changes one at a time and discuss them)
(ok, there was one useful change i found in there, but rv the rest, i don't like it)

All facts, quotes and statistics on this page are valid to the best of my, Johnleemk's knowledge, as of 13:25, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC).