User talk:Aaron Schulz/Disputes

3rr and page prot

 * I'll avoid the usual 'wrong version' complaints. What is your view of the time frame that those tags must stay on the article before we re-hash the prior discussions? There is NO new issue being introduced, NO topic for discussion. What do you recommend for a path to resolving the conflict? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question on Phil Sandifer's tlak page - Phil is reintroducing the 'NPOV' and 'merge' tags to a whole collection of articles that he views as 'blogosphere' rants. The articles have benefitted greatly from multiple editors with multiple POV's, and Phil's insistence on blanket tagging is, in my view, a violation of WP:POINT. He has also repeatedly accused me (in edit summaries and on 'talk') of vandalism in my reverts. He has since violated 3RR. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I log on tommorow, I will check to see what explanation he puts up. If there are none, I will revert all the tags. If he reverts, then I'll report it on WP:AN/I. If there is more long term history, then an RfC may be in line, but lets try to avoid that. Voice -of-  All T 05:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest, and attention. Whatever your conclusions, it's most appreciated. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You need to recognize that Snowspinner has brought this same complaint, with mass tagging, on numerous occasions (for example, October 2005). I'm going to bed but I will dig up links tomorrow. IN addition, his comments to me, accusing me of vandalism, etc., are certainly less productive than my comment - which, while terse, was civil. In the meantime, please see this thread on Wiki-EN:

[WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this?

Snowspinner Snowspinner at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 01:40:03 UTC 2005 Previous message: [WikiEN-l] Placeopedia Next message: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities and its 8 sub-articles, at present, take up 56085 words. This is five times as much as the whole of our coverage on Immanuel Kant.

The articles are, needless to say, utter crap - full of conspiracy theory rantings and POV, they read like the collected waste products of a month of blogging, which is, not coincidentally, exactly what they are.

All of them have been VfDed on two occasions a year or so ago when the election actually happened, and survived. In that time, they've  only gotten worse, more bloated, and more absurd.

{...} We need some sort of system that's going to untangle this kind of  mess - something that doesn't rely on enough people with a whit of   common sense watchlisting the articles and being willing to angrily revert the stupid, because, quite frankly, that obviously didn't work here.

Thoughts? Jimbo in particular?

- Snowspinner

From: Snowspinner Snowspinner at gmail.com

Tue Oct 18 05:16:25 UTC 2005 Previous message: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this? Next message: [WikiEN-l] So what do we do about this? Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Oct 17, 2005, at 11:29 PM, Michael Turley wrote: > > Leave them. Edit them now and then. Cite references for all your > changes. Use cleanup tags liberally. Use NPOV tags as necessary. > > As they mature, they'll become better articles. It's hard to see the > long view of history from this close. Don't abandon them for later, > but keep in mind how recent and contentious these events are. Their > historical impact is still being defined. Immanuel Kant, on the other > hand, has been dead for 201 years, so it's clearly easier to see his > ultimate historical impact. > A nice sentiment, but in this case naive - I slapped dispute tags on  them, and I'm already being threatened with reverts. I fully expect to be reverted by morning. If one cannot even insert a dispute tag without starting an edit war, how do you propose that the articles will be fixed?

{...} This is not a situation where the usual platitudes about the Wiki process are going to do any good. The articles are scrupulously referenced. The problem is that the references are the paranoid rantings of a bunch of bloggers and activist groups that no   mainstream sources considered worth refuting. {...}

-Snowspinner


 * You need to know that this is not new ground from Snowspinner, and the objection remains personal for him. Improving the articles should be the focus, not the righteous objection to their existence. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 05:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)