Talk:Piece of Me (Britney Spears song)/Archive 1

Archive 1

This article was proposed for deletion December 2004. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Pieces of Me. Joyous 19:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

---

Taken from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

3RR violation at Pieces of Me

Everyking has reverted Pieces of Me either entirely or in sections seven times in the past 24 hours: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Note that "restore" seems to be a shorthand for "revert this section, but wait on the rest of the article to avoid a technical violation of the 3RR". --Carnildo 20:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo has certainly violated the 3RR, and I've blocked him for 24 hours: [8] [9] [10] [11]. Everyking appears only to have two recent reverts, [12] and [13]. He has, in fact, reverted pieces of various paragraphs, and has used "restore" when he clearly means "revert," but as far as I can see he has not explicitly violated the 3RR. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 21:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I submit that Everyking has also violated the 3RR: [14], [15], and [16] are full reverts, and the combined effect of [17], [18], and [19] is to revert the article, and would have done so if Reene hadn't reverted the first two.

I agree and have blocked Everyking for 24 hours. Is the IP the above was posted from (User:65.101.119.25) User:Carnildo though? Could a devel check? I assume there's some policy against evading blocks, though I can only find policy on evading bans. --fvw* 22:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

There were definitely three reverts, all to Reene's version from this morning. As for the fourth, I don't know if those edits all add up to a revert. Rhobite 22:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking appears only to have 2-3 recent reverts. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, perhaps seeking compromise, so this does not count. 172 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While [20] could with a lot of effort be construed as seeking compromise, this is sheer reversion; just because it happened to not to cover the entire previous revert doesn't mean it's not a reversion; If reversion has to be the entire edit the 3RR becomes incapable of stopping revert wars as anyone can just avoid reverting a single word. --fvw* 22:36, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Partial revert = attempt at compromise. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Multiple reverts (partial or otherwise) without attempting discussion on talk page = complete ignorance of how to appropriately reach a compromise. See Talk:Pieces of Me (not that there's anything to see there). --Michael Snow 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that discussing in talk is vital, and that I know nothing of the particulars in this case. i was just making a point about partial reverts. I'll leave now :) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, 172 has unblocked Everyking and one of his autoblocked IPs, and a developer check confirms that the anon who posted the above comment shares an IP with User:Carnildo. I have blocked the IP, also for 24 hours. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 23:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a tempest in a teapot... -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I figure if I'm restoring a paragraph or a sentence here or there, that's probably a good way to figure out what the other person is willing to accept. If he or she makes a massive edit, and I revert it fully, then we're not really sure where we stand on the individual details. But if I restore one sentence, and the other person leaves it alone, well, maybe that means the other person is willing to accept it. And also, a lot of these restorations of content included revisions that were attempts to abbreviate the content a bit as attempts at compromise. I would love to engage in a point by point discussion about these things, but unfortunately there has not been very much of that happening. To characterize my partial restorations of content as a violation of the 3RR is a total misinterpretation of the rule, in my opinion. If what I was doing is forbidden by the 3RR, then it seems to me people would have no incentive to make edits geared towards finding an acceptable compromise, since they'd just be "reverting" anyway. Everyking 08:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm intimately involved in this, but, just to point something out, that's what Talk pages are for. Talk:Pieces of Me has a whopping total of one entry, and that's a link to the article's VfD debate. Without Talk pages, there would be similar seesaw editing occuring on any number of contentious articles. --Slowking Man 08:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but this is a dispute that's carried over from other articles; basically, some people believe I've added too much information to the articles and are deleting a lot of it. I don't absolutely object to deletion of some things, but I do object to the kind of massive deletions being attempted by Carnildo. The talk page is right there for him if he wants to explain why he removed something and try to defend it without just revert warring. Everyking 08:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note Everyking is already the subject of an RfC with massive support relating almost entirely merely to his exploits on Autobiography (album) (where he at one point committed five reverts within two hours). I don't believe the 3RR covers partial reverts, but Everyking has definitely been constantly violating the spirit of the 3 revert rule on disputed articles related to Ashlee Simpson. That alone is cause enough to worry. I submit no opinion as to this particular dispute, but just letting everyone know Everyking has a history of massive reverting and/or sneaking around the 3RR where Ashlee Simpson is involved. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)