On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Would it be an accceptable compromise to revert
the article to the
version Brandt declared himself happy with in October 2005,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=25614242
update it a little, add some citations, then protect it for a longish
period until feelings have died down?
Evidently a lot of editors have invested a lot of time since then.
Brandt should make a list of complaints he has about the current
version. And again, I think he should be permitted to post these
complaints to the talk page of the article (not necessarily to edit
anything else). OTRS is an easy way to contact us, but it doesn't
become part of the public record in the same way talk pages do.
Part of the problem with the bio is that it has
been unstable -- 2446
edits by 718 unique editors, including 271 IP addresses,
It's been semi-protected for a while, no? IMHO it can stay that way
until we can set it to "show last reviewed version".
Semi-protection only means people must have had an account for four
days before they can edit it. Brandt's issue (he says) is that he
doesn't want to have to keep checking his Wikpedia entry to see
whether anything's been added that he needs to deal with. Asking him
to draw up a list of complaints misses the point that he doesn't want
to have to do this every day, every week, every month, every year. If
we could agree on a stable version, then protect it until the heat has
gone out of the situation, we'd be meeting him halfway between
deletion and the current situation. Being reasonable has to involve
compromises on both sides.
Sarah