On 4/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@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