The Avalanche Gulch page is primarily an incorporation of the other posts that other users had made onto the page brought into the main page, with very limited actual content from the current owner (who is your buddy by the way... that hasn't slipped me).
Just about everyone from SP is my buddy. I have never met the person in question, but helped him on some pages (as I have with dozens of other members).
PS, if you think that I am biased towards this member, see that on some of his pages I have given a lower vote than everyone else:
Anyway, my profile pages says, and has said for years:
I do not mind answering questions or giving advice as to any of the mountains I have climbed, so if you are looking for more information, feel free to email me. Also, I do not mind helping new members with their pages. I am not an expert, but if you need any help with your pages, I will be happy to do so.
And I do acknowledge that you, Scott, in particular, made this as unpleasant an experience as any I have had on this site for some time
I disagreed with aspects of your proposed changes on this site at all and will said so. We disagree on the voting system (and we probably will never agree on that; it is unlikely that you will like any of my proposals; and I did let it go) and the way that this situation concerning the Avalanche Gulch page was handled. It is very unpleasant for me as well.
I agree with much of what you say on this matter, just not the way it is done.
I agree with you on:
Poor quality and inaccuracies need to be addressed (and inaccuracies pointed out in a timely manner; don't be afraid).
Poor quality and inaccuracies are rampant on SP (I could list hundreds of examples).
Members should not adopt pages without improving them.
There needs to be some sort of dynamic system for page adoption.
Several of the member’s pages in question could use more work and details. Several of the pages that were adopted received only minimal improvements. The member adopted too many pages (in my opinion) without enough improvement to the the pages.
You probably could make a fantastic page on Avalanche Gulch; probably better than the existing one (especially since you have climbed and will climb the mountain more times). [If I were the maintainer of that page, I would have just transferred the page to you].
Where our opinions differ:
These are some the steps I take when I see a page that has inaccuracies before calling it out publicly in the forum (if there was a written policy, maybe all this wouldn't be needed):
I post comments, additions and corrections to the page and say what is wrong with it. I offer to help with the page. Here is a recent example:
It's not a bad start, but this page really needs some more information. It's more or less an average page right now, but it can be improved.
It needs some more details on the driving directions and especially the route description. The time needed for the climb should also be mentioned, for example, I believe this one is ~20 miles round trip.
The links could also be made live (SP has instructions on this) as well.
Please take this vote as some positive constructive criticism. The Flat Tops are a great place and you have some great photos on this page.
That said, I'll try to add some of the improvements you suggest on time required, route descriptions, etc.
<i>I have no idea what making links live means. </i>
http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/recr ... ndex.shtml
<a href=http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/recreation/wilderness/flattops/index.shtml>Click Here for More Information (or whatever other text you want the link to say)</a>
There are directions on how to do this on the FAQ's or there's a way to do it on the page itself.
That way, you can click on the link on your page and go right to the other site.
<i>That said, I'll try to add some of the improvements you suggest on time required, route descriptions, etc. </i>
That would be great. I'll be looking forward to seeing it. The Flat Tops are great.
Sometimes, that doesn't work though. The page above was improved, but not as much as I'd like it to be. Usually they are are improved.
Sometimes the member doesn't make any improvements at all and just makes excuses (since they are inactive, I will mention streeyyr and 1000peaks by name; especially since streeyyr's pages need to be adopted out). Sometimes, the member doesn't do anything at all (such as on the mentioned Shingle Peak page).
In many cases you have to call out page in public and point out the inaccuracies. I am not afraid to do this. Usually, I try to help the member first and give the person a chance to correct the errors pointed out (if you thinks this makes me a bad member and is ruining SP; then we disagree).
There are times that I don't do this though. If material is stolen, cut and pasted from other sources (where the page owner is not the source), made up, etc., I call it out immediately. Same with duplicate pages.
In all other situations, I give the member a chance for improvement first. Even if a page hasn't been improved in a long time, I will post on the page things that need to be fixed and wait (it doesn't have to be for that long) to see if improvements are made before calling them out publicly or trying to get their page transferred to me.
That is where we disagee on the manner. You seem to think that any opinion other than your own in wrong and makes everyone a bad member and you want to attack them personally (including myself).
As far as intentionally distorting anything you tried to say, I have never done that. I accidentally did that on the wiki thread, but once I found that I was in the wrong, I corrected it.
Also, before transferring a bunch of pages to any member, I think the history of the member and his/her current members need to be taken in account. Look to see what their previous submissions are (if they are new and don't have submissions yet, give them a chance). If you do think that their pages are strong enough to improve the pages adopted, don't transfer a bunch of them (not directed to anyone in particular).
Also, as mentioned, sometimes you do have to take a heavy handed approach to taking pages away from members. If a member doesn't improve a page after having inaccuracies pointed out, then a heavy handed approach is warranted.
I also think that a written criteria and the process on page adoptions is needed. It would avoid most of the problems and much of the above would become a much faster process.
I agree 100% with Matt (which I think you agree with some of it as well):
There are ambitious people out there willing and more than able to dramatically improve pages, but their enthusiasm and ability to do so is squashed by the current system which allows for people to "collect" pages. "Owning" a page should be a matter of responsibility to keep it updated rather than a privilege or a trophy to show on your user page. With the new policy in place, I think this will change. If people really understand that it is their responsibility to keep a page updated and not just sit on it, those who have the desire will keep their pages up to date. Those who don't will lose their pages to someone who will.
And I agree with this from Matt:
Previously there was no policy for adopted pages. It would be unfair to retroactively impose such a policy on adopted pages. People should be given fair warning before having to give up pages they've adopted. We can implement the new policy, starting today, and move forward with it in place. But applying it retroactively doesn't seem like a good idea.
The reason I was vocal in this thread isn't to piss you off or to bully you into changing your opinion (although you did admittedly piss me off), or because the person in question is my buddy as you say (I don't really know him), but because think that what you are doing has the potential to drive off existing members. Feel free to attack me for my opinion.