Content deleted Content added
Geometry guy (talk | contribs) →Comment by Geometry guy: Add (typo) |
The Devil's Advocate (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 615: | Line 615: | ||
:@Geo I don't think I have been particularly provocative towards MONGO, though his behavior can make it quite difficult for any editor to remain civil. You expressed the desire during a similarly trivial debacle over the first sentence of the cultural impact section for consensus to focus more on making edits and less on reverting and arguing over the details. Unfortunately, when editors revert without providing clear objections discussion becomes quite impossible. I mean if someone reverts a primarily stylistic change full of citations with the comment "change may not be supported by sources" and fails to provide further explanation, as in this latest instance, how exactly can there be any discussion about how to proceed? Of course, the common denominator in those situations is AQFK, not MONGO.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
:@Geo I don't think I have been particularly provocative towards MONGO, though his behavior can make it quite difficult for any editor to remain civil. You expressed the desire during a similarly trivial debacle over the first sentence of the cultural impact section for consensus to focus more on making edits and less on reverting and arguing over the details. Unfortunately, when editors revert without providing clear objections discussion becomes quite impossible. I mean if someone reverts a primarily stylistic change full of citations with the comment "change may not be supported by sources" and fails to provide further explanation, as in this latest instance, how exactly can there be any discussion about how to proceed? Of course, the common denominator in those situations is AQFK, not MONGO.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
@NW My edits in this topic area have been in the spirit of making bold edits to improve the articles and provide a neutral point of view. To say I am "one of the key problems" is getting switched around. The key problem is the current state of the 9/11 topic area and the conduct of the "gatekeepers" who patrol its pages. Editors have little room for making bold edits and for a long time there has not been a constructive or encouraging environment. I try to make bold edits and I try to have honest and cordial discussion with other editors, but many editors resist compromise because they feel it is a slippery slope. On some level I think these editors are afraid that allowing any leeway will open the floodgates and as a result many of these articles remain locked in a state of morass for fear of what might happen if people are allowed to make bold edits. There is a "revert first and ask questions later" mentality dominating this topic area that makes achieving a constructive dialogue a battle in itself. Should you want an in-depth listing of all the recent evidence of pervasive problematic behavior by editors in this topic area towards me and others I would have little trouble providing it. Just say the word.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
@NW My edits in this topic area have been in the spirit of making bold edits to improve the articles and provide a neutral point of view. To say I am "one of the key problems" is getting switched around. The key problem is the current state of the 9/11 topic area and the conduct of the "gatekeepers" who patrol its pages. Editors have little room for making bold edits and for a long time there has not been a constructive or encouraging environment. I try to make bold edits and I try to have honest and cordial discussion with other editors, but many editors resist compromise because they feel it is a slippery slope. On some level I think these editors are afraid that allowing any leeway will open the floodgates and as a result many of these articles remain locked in a state of morass for fear of what might happen if people are allowed to make bold edits. There is a "revert first and ask questions later" mentality dominating this topic area that makes achieving a constructive dialogue a battle in itself. Should you want an in-depth listing of all the recent evidence of pervasive problematic behavior by editors in this topic area towards me and others I would have little trouble providing it. Just say the word.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Adding to Geo's comment, the dynamic would actually include Tom, and Toa to a lesser extent. Recently Dheyward stepped into that troublesome dynamic as well, after Tom's topic ban and prior to the AN case.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|The Devil's Advocate]] ([[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|talk]]) 01:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==== Comment by Geometry guy ==== |
==== Comment by Geometry guy ==== |