Talk:Ars Technica/Archive 4

Subscription problems
Criticism D: ''Subscriptions can take up to 4 weeks to be activated. '' Problems:
 * WP:VERIFY: This citation doesn’t even link to a thread or a post. It never has. It links to the support forum for subscriptions. It’s shocking that this keeps getting restored given how completely empty it is.
 * Status: Never defended. Not once.Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was defended. I'm not sure how the link got mangled, but see above. or you can check here


 * This post with the same problem seems to have been "deleted" from the forum.


 * And here's an explanation for the typical subscription problems . Apparently they're all handled manually by one guy who's still in school. Dave-G 00:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please tab and group your comments. It gets confusing otherwise. And the link was never correct, as can be seen here. So it wasn't defended at all before now.
 * Now, that said, we have something to actually go on. And my question is, is it fair and accurate to say that subscriptions can take up to four weeks to process based on two posts from 2002? Where one took 16 days and the other took _seven_? And you can't draw conclusions about how Subscriptions are handled now by that last post, obviously. That was in 2001 just months after the Subscriptor program was rolled out (September... it came out in July) It would fail to meet Wiki standards of accuracy. They are now automatic according to the FAQ (except for Snail Mail payments).
 * Lastly, we can't call those problems typical (as it is one four year old post), and someone 'outside of Wikipedia' would actually have to prove a trend with forum data before you ever could because of prohibition against original research on Wikipedia. At the very least, you would need a forum post from a forum user saying it was typical, but then you're faced with having a biased source. Debuskjt 01:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I am referring to regarding rules-mongering, undue weight, etc. below. You first write that there was only one instance (7 days). Then you edit to reflect that you apparently found another instance (16 days). The first time you say "It only happened once, that is what you base it on", and then change it to "It only happened twice, that is what you base it on? You have to show a trend! No original research!". You ignore the fact that this entire article is "original research", unless you can point me to a book on ArsTechnica. Almost the entire article is gathered from "citations" which are really just links to ArsTechnica or Ars OpenForum. You have an answer for everything someone has or even might say. You are intimately familiar with the history of Ars, seem dedicated to removing most criticism, try to invalidate all citations as "not enough examples" or "don't apply" and yet I assume you would state that you have no bias. That you are only interested in the absolute accuracy of the article. We shouldn't have to provide 20 citations. One, or maybe two, should really be sufficient. Looking at other articles, there are usually only one or two citations for any one statement. Meanwhile, you seem to expect that we should have to compile statistics for you to justify every item. Also, Dave-G states that he is not sure how the link got mangled. He didn't say it was someone here mangling it. It could have been a copy-paste error. I thought we were supposed to assume good faith?--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't find any of those links I discussed. Dave-G posted them all. The reason my first edits were mangled so badly is that originally Dave-G's edit looked like [|this]. I couldn't figure out what was supposed to be apart of the original edit from Tsetna and what he had added to the Talk page. And the article is not original research. Most of the article makes claims about what Ars Technica is based on what Ars Technica says it is. If you have a problem with this, read WP:NOR then add in all places where you feel like citations are necessary.
 * And it has nothing to do with Dave-G saying the link got mangled. He said the four week claim _was_ defended. Well, has it been? Can you show me an edit of the article where the correct link was listed? Otherwise, he was incorrect and it has nothing with assuming good faith. Also, can you tell me with a straight face that you feel that the four week time frame verbage is accurate based on the two citations Dave-G added? Would you think it accurate to say Subscriptions can take four weeks based on a collection of posts from 4-5 years ago when it was a manual process, even though they are now handled automatically and have been for several years? How about stop the person attacks and respond to what I'm saying? And that is the reason why you're violating Wiki guidelines on assuming good faith. Debuskjt 16:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, you can look at my edit history or my Talk page history here to see that I don't think all of the criticism should go. Your claim that I'm "removing most criticism" is false, and I've never tried to hide my association with Ars as a reader and forum member. I don't believe I've actually removed any criticism from the article, though I have changed wording. Of the criticism that is listed, I do think half should go. The two about Ars proper should stay and the last one about search performance should stay. They are now well worded, well documented, and the claims are coming from the citations, not using the citations as data to prop up a view expressed here. The problems with the other three are listed and documented at the bottom of this page in "Cliques & Punitive Action." Debuskjt 16:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there is still significant disagreement on this, instead of having a revert war, I will change the statement to 16 days for now (since that is something that can be cited at this point). However, I will say that it seems to me that you are trying to "win the argument" by demanding citations for things of which the Ars Community is well aware.--216.227.83.118 14:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How is something that the Ars Community is well aware of? It wasn't something I even knew was supposed to be an issue until I started editing this article. If it were still an ongoing issue, shouldn't we be able to find someone somewhere complaining that most subscriptions take a long time to process? I can only find individual data points (insufficient for Wiki, as it poses as original research) that Dave-G provided, and all of them are from at least four years ago. I just went through six months of posts in Subscription Support and Services and could only find one reference to a significantly delayed subscription request (though the period is unspecified and the user seems unconcerned), and that was because the check was sent via snail mail. The Subscriber FAQ clearly states that snail mail requests are held and processed as a batch, so can take several weeks even if the check clears quickly.


 * And why aren't you actually responding to my points? Instead, you keep making personal accusations and ignoring the problems with the existing citations provided. At least try to claim that they aren't problematic--that they don't violate WP:NOR and Wiki guidelines on accuracy--instead of implying that I'm just unreasonable and sparking more revert wars. Debuskjt 15:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I explained already that this is not a valid citation. I am removing it. Look below for my comments in case you missed them @ “14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC).” Tsetna 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Another note: I changed the "volunteers" part, which keeps getting changed back and forth between staff and volunteers, to "staff and selected volunteers". This is more accurate, as both staff and volunteers do moderate. Although in defense of El Jefe's edit, volunteers that contribute for long periods of time and have authority within an organization are usually referred to as staff. It is also recommended by wikipedia that instead of removing someone's edits wholesale (i.e. subscriptions), one should try to change them to be more accurate/compliant. As the delay has been documented, please stop removing the reference to it.--216.227.83.118 14:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with this. “Staff” implies that they work for Ars Technica for money. I’d like to see proof of people moderating at Ars Technica for money. I am modifying the text. Tsetna 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Debuskjt’s points on this. The data is old, still isn’t accurate, and does not demonstrate a trend. As well, the link on the Criticism page doesn’t make sense. It’s a payment for $5, which is not a subscription payment. The problem from the post is that PayPal hasn’t cleared his check. How is that Ars fault? As well you can tell from the second user’s comments that the first user’s subscription is currently active: “just post here if your rights are mistakenly taken away.” I’m removing it. Tsetna 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 216.x... talking about “good faith” after you unloaded red herrings and attacks is silly . If you don’t like Wikipedia’s rules, I suggest you take it up with the administration. Tsetna 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can try to check that out later. Maybe a specific post wasn't referenced due to the registration requirement to get to it? Not sure, as I did not add this criticism.--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t matter why the citation is bogus. What matters is that it is bogus. Tsetna 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional comments: This criticism is still present, and I still propose that it be removed. There is still no proper citation for it, and no citation for the new claim made next to it (being resolved). If there is a criticism here, it needs to be documented. Tsetna 22:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Checking on the history, it looks as if Reindeer Flotilla was aware of the subscription activation issue, and he is the one who changed it to indicate that it is now resolved. I did not add the crit., nor did I supply the recent modification. Perhaps Reindeer Flotilla can come back and provide docs for those parts. If not, I will try to google it later. The FAQ bit was accurate, and I have restored that section.--216.227.82.35 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording to note that it is “rare,” which is a fair temporary solution until a documented trend can be provided. If it’s not documented soon, it should be removed, original criticism or added and unsupported additions. I have also replaced the FAQ section with more accurate information. Tsetna 13:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed your change a little. Take a look and see if you think it is ok. I tried to remove some of the redundancy in the statement, and fixed a little spelling and grammar. I also removed the part that did not seem to be criticism (or I didn't understand it as such.) Maybe you want to merge it into the main section? The FAQ section originally read that the "how to unsubscribe" portion was blank. ArsTechnica then apparently fixed this, and it was edited to reflect that the entry was no longer blank.--216.227.82.35 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the specific FAQ criticism remains, then I would like to see the full story told. That includes the Subscription forum having its own FAQ and that the FAQ, which includes info on closing accounts, is linked from the main subscriber page. The existing criticism implies that there was no information available on how to cancel an account, which is false. I propose that the FAQ criticism be removed entirely. What ever was happening it was fixed. I also propose that the “4 weeks” criticism be removed. It’s undocumented and apparently old news. Tsetna 20:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What actually happened is that I looked for corroboration and could find nothing, so I'm assuming it happened a long time ago—if at all, and has since been resolved. I think it would be better off left out since there is no existing documentation that anyone can find. Reindeer Flotilla 22:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, then I'm removing it along with the FAQ issue. Tsetna 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting from the Citation article on Wikipedia If none of those strategies succeed, do not remove the inactive reference, but rather record the date that the original link was found to be inactive — even inactive, it still records the sources that were used, and it is possible hard copies of such references may exist, or alternatively that the page will turn up in the near future in the Internet Archive, which deliberately lags by six months or more. Note also that whilst many printed sources become outdated, scholars still routinely cite those works when referenced. If the links are not there (haven't checked them yet, then the above applies, since as far as I know this item was not disputed. Wikipedia being instantly editable does not mean that when a piece of information becomes "old news" that it gets removed from the article. I'm putting it back for now, unless there is more cause against it than the fact that it may no longer be happening, or that the FAQ is now more complete.--205.231.151.88 03:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The link was never “active,” it has never linked to evidence. The Wikipedia guideline is there for when good evidence goes offline. There was never good evidence. The link was added on 5/14/06 by Dave-G, exactly as this: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/frm/f/6490940022. That link has never changed. What it links to is a forum listing, an index of posts. This is not evidence. I have noted this before, it is contested. I am removing it again. As well, the FAQ is not “now more complete,” it has always been that way, but the NPOV entry never acknowledged it. Tsetna 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave-G may not have provided the best link (in that the content of the subscriber forum probably changes on a daily basis). However, are you saying that there was never a delay in activating subscriptions? Are you questioning the validity of the statement that subscriptions sometimes took up to 4 weeks to be activated? I don't understand your purpose in this. Also, the FAQ section on how to cancel your subscription was blank until recently. Are you disputing that? Whether the specific subscription FAQ had it all along or not, if the main FAQ has a section called How to cancel your sub., and it was until recently blank, then there is nothing wrong with that statement. And for the record, almost anything in the criticism section was at one time or another non-NPOV to you.--205.231.151.88 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave-G could have linked directly to a post. He did not, so there is no reliable, verifiable source to document a single instance, forget about the trend that it implies. Regarding the FAQ, your claim that “the FAQ section on how to cancel your subscription was blank until recently” is wrong. I have already outlined why.Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to take issue with your archival of the old comments in this section. I have never performed an archive, so if it is automatically date based, then I can see how it is formatted the way it is now. But to me, it looks as if the page is hand-picking portions of Talk that to a quick glance seem to imply that I am the only one defending some of these sections. It leaves out the warning posted by Kristi_ski regarding autobiographical editing, and many others. I understand the desire to trim the page: it needs it. But I think the trimming should be done with an effort to either preserve both sides of the conversation, or the entire talk page should be archived in one go. Again, I am ignorant of archival protocol, so feel free to disagree.--205.231.151.88 03:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 75% of the the page was archived and anyone can link to it or quote it. There’s a big box pointing to it. The most recent discussion was kept on this page for obvious reasons. Since when does "everything above the bottom 25% of the page" (what I archived) count as "hand-picked"? Endless accusations. Archiving my own arguments, too! Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

''Subscriptions can be difficult to cancel after a political dispute with the moderators.. '' Problems:
 * WP:VERIFY: Content of the citation: The cited page says nothing about political disputes, nothing about disputes with moderators. It mentions difficulty cancelling a subscription because of supposedly blocked emails. The cause of the difficulty is incorrectly attributed in the criticism, and we don’t really know why he had email problems. The criticism spins all of this into another baseless attack on Ars Technica.
 * WP:RS: Reliability of the citation: none. WP guidelines caution against sources where the writer has “an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report” WP:RS. There is no oversight on Amazon reviews, and anyone can spoof a review. They are not reliable.
 * Another WP:RS issue: WP says that “exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.” Not only does the citation not support the criticism, but the criticism itself is over the top exceptional, because it charges Ars Technica with attempting to steal people’s money.
 * Status: Never defended.Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we have a problem. Amazon reviews are apparently a "no-go", because they are online sources, and anyone can spoof them. How are forum conversations unable to be spoofed? Register for a few usernames, pick on one guy, voila! So basically, you are saying that forum postings can be evidence, but Amazon reviews are different? Both require the same act - registering as a user (free in both cases, I might add. According to the sections above, anything not on the printed page by a third-party publisher is not recommended for use. Considering the nature of electronic forums, this becomes an exercise in futility.--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You conveniently ignored most of the argument. For instance, you ignored the point that the criticism and its source do not match. Why is that? You also ignored the exception claim aspect. Why is that?


 * To the argument about self-published “sources,” you should take your complaint to Wikipedia as it is a Wikipedia policy. The Chicken Little characterization of my argument is a p[oor rebuttal. If you can’t see the difference between a user on a forum who has a verifiable history of posting and an Amazon reviewer with no other reviews, who named himself Brutus, and filled his “review” with attacks and insults clearly meant as vitriol… I don’t know what to say except what I have already wrote: Wikipedia specifically advises against this kind of thing being considered reliable. If there was a forum citation of some guy with 1 post and it was equally as vitriolic, I would suspect it as well. Everyone should.Tsetna 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bringing this up on the forum has been seen to result in account suspension. Problems:
 * WP:VERIFY: Content of the citation: yet another citation that doesn’t match the criticism. “Bringing this up,” is wrong, if “this” refers to the political disputes in the previous sentence. The cited page mentions nothing about political disputes.
 * WP:VERIFY: The cited page says nothing about account suspension. There is no evidence the user was suspended. I have pointed out for more than a month now, the user in question still posts on Ars Technica.
 * Status: Never defended.Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is probably why some editor, again not me, changed it to suspension. Are you saying the user in question was never suspended? Why not contact him and ask him to provide details, if you are so upset over it?--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no proof he was suspended or banned. Ever. It’s not my job to track down some guy and ask him what happened, what a joke. The citation either supports the criticism or it does not. This is Wikipedia’s guideline. Emotionalizing my argument is a BS tactic. Tsetna 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. Wiki guidelines CLEARLY state: "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor" and "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." Tsetna would be fully within his rights to remove it until the criticism is actually cited with a reliable source. Debuskjt 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this criticism more than once, because it is completely false. My reward for following Wikipedia guidelines is to be called names and be lied to, as you can see that a certain someone claims that this is reliable stuff that has been verified. Not even close. Tsetna 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments are interspersed above. Tsetna, besides being accused of vandalism/whitewashing (which, besides me, I see instances by 3 other editors asking you not to do or just reverting with an "rvv" tag) what names have you been called?--216.227.82.35 22:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You have called me an apologist, “ArsFan”, “ShareHolder,” and implied that I work for Ars on more than one case, or that I am “Ars representative who was assigned this task” as if I can’t have my own opinions without being told what they are. I hope this “refreshes” your memory.Tsetna 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Apologist" - one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution


 * You are saying you weren't writing in defense of an institution? Is that name-calling? Reminds me of an awesome Emo Philips joke where he talks about the other kids calling him names, like "Meatballhead", or "Neo-Calvinist". The latter of course is what I am comparing to. :)


 * "Shareholder" - This was actually said in jest (note the smile at the end). It referred to your apparently dire need to remove some criticisms and soften others. It's actually not an uncommon remark. For example "Isn't that your 3rd BigMac today? Are you a shareholder?" would refer to the fact that someone has a vested interest in McDonald's success and therefore is personally ensuring they have sufficient revenue. I prefer Popeye's myself, and have been "accused" of being a "shareholder" by two different people in two different states.


 * "ArsFan" - So, are you saying you are not a fan of Arstechnica? And how is that name-calling?


 * "Ars Representative assigned to this task" and "Ars Employee" - Thinking you have been assigned to "fix" this article is not name calling. The timing between previous whitewashes and your activity here seemed to coincide with the compromise reached with other editors. Considering that other Ars staff have performed nearly the same criticisectomy that you did, I figured that one editor got tired and passed the torch on. I know I'm tired (ready to go on sabbatical, in fact).


 * So you really haven't refreshed my memory, as the "name-calling" you accuse me of apparently requires a much lower standard of proof than criticisms of ArsTechnica.--216.227.82.35 23:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The concept of being able to disagree with someone without repeatedly accusing them of blind allegiance or having ulterior motives (the point of all of your childish name calling) is something you should attempt to understand. Your name-calling, in jest or not, serves only to distract people from the real issue. Perhaps that is your motivation. I don’t care. What I would have liked to see is some actual discussion of the issues, which I have laid out more than once. Tsetna 13:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that your behavior suggests an either emotional or personal stake in the content of this article is enough motive for me. It appears to me that according to you, everyone who has edited this article to add or restore criticisms is apparently taking a non-NPOV approach to this article. But you get upset when someone speaks up about it. You use a preemptive strike method of accusing me of name-calling to try to deflate the criticism. You report me for 3 reverts in a day (a rule I was ignorant of) and have probably been scouring the rule books to see if you can match any other "violation" with editors you disagree with. Speaking of the 3RR problem, you will notice that nothing ever seem to come from that. I wonder why... Perhaps it is because your focus was not on maintaining a good article, but instead on fighting a fruitless battle to try to keep all criticism out of the article.--205.231.151.88 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You go and contact several other people on Wikipedia, give them instructions on how to search for dirt on Ars using Google, complain about not knowing my personal schedule and worry about babysitting the article, and you accuse me of having an “emotional or personal stake”? You are still all about allegations. I’m sorry that your fishing expeditions have not worked out for you so far. To your latest round of errors, again I  myself have added criticism to this article. I have improved criticism that was there. Regarding the 3R rule, you violated it, ignorance or not. If you want to interpret the lack of action (at most you would have a warning from an admin anyway) as a sign of your greatness, by all means! If my crime is reporting you for a rule violation which you committed, guilty as charged. You won't do it again. Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely I contacted other "interested" editors on Wikipedia. Just as I am sure that the editors with opinions differing from mine did not all participate in this article by chance. At the time, I was not only extremely busy, but also having to revert against 2 separate editors who had a little "consensus" going. I do feel that I was baited into a 3RR violation by the repeated reverts, not knowing of that particular rule. Before contributing to the ArsTechnica article, I never had rules quoted at me left and right. Then again, I feel I was dealing with people who were not trying to fight additions/corrections. In this case, you use rules like an arsenal, and I am a more casual donor of time and effort. I have tried to go through some of the different Wikipedia editing articles, especially those that are mentioned. This is not a job for me, though. I don't have time to read through all of the various policy pages. I do not believe that most editors have, or will, or are expected to in order to contribute.--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More accusations from you. Regarding the Wikipedia rules and guidelines, I’m glad that you could admit that you don’t care enough to try and follow or read them. Your personal viewpoints are not replacements from them, though. You should consider why they exist: to help sort out disagreements. Tsetna 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I also feel that I am being "out-waited". I don't know what your schedule is like, but mine can be pretty hectic. When I edit things on Wikipedia, I don't think they will be permanent. But what I don't expect is that a small group of people associated with the subject of an article to try to clean it of anything that might reflect negatively on it. So I don't think I should have to baby-sit this article and do comparisons on each edit to see "what has been removed" this time. Especially documented facts as I read them (see below for the "attribution" example.--205.231.151.88 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the content is NPOV and cites reliable, verifiable sources, there’s nothing to worry about. It is as simple as that. Tsetna 14:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not as simple as that. You removed several criticisms based on a lack of alleged proper citation. Reviewing some of the links, I could not find proper citation in them. I therefore endeavoured to add such proper citations as I could find. Having done that, you are still attempting to get many of those criticisms removed.--216.227.83.118 04:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If the content is NPOV and cites reliable, verifiable sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, there’s nothing to worry about. It really is as simple as that. Tsetna 14:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)