Content deleted Content added
Line 816: ''An'' SPA is not necessarily a bad thing. A squadron of them all making the same flawed arguments and completely ignoring any effort to explain WP policy and procedure absolutely is. The SPAs and POV warriors are making editing this article ''extremely'' difficult. This movement is uniquely problematic in that it involves so many conspiracy theories about 'unreliable' media: in their online echo chambers the gaters been talking about 'hit pieces' and 'clickbait' and 'collusion' for months, and they've been carrying the same flawed but endlessly reinforced articles from those echo chambers onto Wikipedia. They all think they're experts on journalism who are qualified to determine whether or not the freaking ''New Yorker'' of all things fact checks their articles. With so much hostility coming from that corner, with so many editors here finding themselves having the same conversations and explaining the same basic principles again and again and again with each new person who wants to toss out every source that's 'biased' or 'unreliable' (in other words, any source that they don't like) and getting nothing but [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] in response, you should not be the least surprised that tempers are wearing thin. Your sanctimonious 'concerns' that we are not being sensitive enough to the SPAs and your completely spurious claims of 'antiGG bias' were simply the last straw: it's quite bad enough to be hearing these sorts of accusations of 'bias' from people who are only here on the project to whitewash this article. But you're an admin. You should know better. You didn't even have the decency to preach 'moderation' and 'understanding' to 'both sides:' you just blamed the people who have been trying to keep working on this article in the face of an extremely hostile, arrogant and dismissive brigade of pov warriors. -- [[User:TaraInDC|TaraInDC]] ([[User talk:TaraInDC|talk]]) 22:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC) :: I just want TaraInDC to note that under a definition of SPA, s/he might be considered a SPA, considering you've only contributed to a handful of articles, although excessively and passionately, are in single digit numbers. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC) :::Excuse me? The articles I've ''created'' are in single digit numbers, maybe - although that number is still higher than yours. And you can fuck right off with 'excessively,' thank you very much. -- [[User:TaraInDC|TaraInDC]] ([[User talk:TaraInDC|talk]]) 22:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC) :I'm not challenging the use of quotes to support facts or where the popular opinion is clear, as to avoid claims of us as editors being impartial. But once we're past the facts, and start getting into the ''reactions'', at a point where we are still too close to the event to really establish this well, excess use of quotes when most are from the antiGG side does create the imbalance that is in this article presently. :And there has not been a "squadron" of SPAs here - compared to the AFD, what's here is completely tame. Yes, many do not have understanding of WP principles and sourcing and the like and we have to repeat the arguments over and over about why the sourcing is fine, etc. As long as there's a proGG side, we're going to have that, and it's not going to disappear. But only a few I would consider being more demanding than not, and most simply are not aware. There's also a few good ideas from them time to time. And I'm saying this as an admin, meaning that I have to step back and look at all sides of an issue and make a determination at times which way something should be taken - and it is pretty clear this article is too much written to create sympathy for those harassed and condemn those on the proGG which is extremely far from an encyclopedic article on a controversial subject. We are required to take a much stronger middle ground here. The literature ''does not support this position'', particularly when you look to the more neutral pieces like the New Yorker, and the Washington Post. They do not simply hand wave away the concerns of the proGG side, and do not spend too much time creating sympathy for those harassed or work to balance the proGG into their articles better. We don't have to change the narrative here, nor introduce more proGG points, but just tone done the rhetoric when we are looking to the reactions from the media. --[[User:Masem|M<font size="-3">ASEM</font>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC) | |||