Thumperward (talk | contribs) →Questions: mine |
|||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
Users who endorse this summary: |
Users who endorse this summary: |
||
# If the first few examples given above are among the most egregious edits CW has made then I really see no basis for a complaint. They look good faith and can arguably be said to have improved the article by removing unsightly ineffective banners. If the articles are truly poor, an AfD can resolve the issue. It is ludicrous that an editor that goes around saving and cleaning up articles is the object of an RfC when there are vandals with no notable contribution doing the opposite who get no attention. [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
# |
|||
<!-- Extras |
<!-- Extras |
Revision as of 03:46, 7 December 2010
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC).
- Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Cause of concern
Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has displayed a pattern of behavior whereby he repeatedly tries to delete and/or marginalize legitimate cleanup tags on articles without actually fixing the problem to which the cleanup tag refers. This is just one part of a larger pattern of Colonel Warden's disruptive behavior with regard to the deletion process on Wikipedia in general, however this RFC/U is intended to focus only on the issue of inappropriate cleanup tag removal. Here is the timeline of events which led up to this RfC/U:
- Colonel Warden begins to outright delete legitimate cleanup tags without addressing the problem. In the interest of brevity, below is just a sample of diffs. Going back further in his contribution history would surely show more of the same:
- Oct 31 2010 — Remove prod without explanation, removed unreferenced tag without adding references.
- Oct 31 2010 — Removed morefootnotes and refimprove tag, made no improvements.
- Nov 6 2010 — Removed wikify, deadend, and catimprove tags, made no improvements.
- Nov 7 2010 — Removed prod without explanation, removed unreferenced tag without adding references.
- Nov 7 2010 — Removed plot, in-universe, and cleanup tags. Added a sentence and a citation.
- Nov 7 2010 — Removed cleanup and unreferenced tags, made no improvements to the article. He also started an edit war over the cleanup tags, which can be seen from this exchange:
- A user reverts CW's removal of the cleanup tags.
- The same user nominates the article for deletion.
- CW tries to remove the cleanup tag and replace it with a rescue tag.
- The same user restores the cleanup tag, leaves the rescue tag intact, and warns CW on his talk page.
- CW again tries to delete the unreferenced and cleanup tags.
- The same user restores both tags.
- An admin is forced to protect the article because of the edit war.
- Nov 8 2010 — Removed unreferenced, orphan, and advert tags; added rescue tag. Didn't add any references, didn't add any incoming links.
- ***Page has since been deleted, can an admin see this diff?***
- Oct 31 2010 — For admins: CW removed PROD and multiple issues tags with edit summary "-tags"
- On November 9, I noticed the issue with one article, and then checking through CW's contributions I realized there was a pattern of disruption. Other users had noticed this as well and posted on his talk page:
- Nov 9 2010 — I posted a warning on his talk page at 22:21 UTC.
- About an hour later (23:19 UTC), Colonel Warden ignores the warnings on his talk page and continues his behavior without discussion:
- November 9 2010 — Removes prod without explanation, removes orphan tag without adding any incoming links. This article continues to this day to have zero incoming links from the article mainspace.
- About an hour after that, I start an ANI thread about Colonel Warden's behavior. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Inappropriate cleanup tag removal. The overwhelming consensus that emerges from that thread is that Colonel Warden's behavior is disruptive and must stop immediately. Some editors call for an immediate block. About 6 hours later, the discussion is closed with the resolution that "Colonel Warden should not remove tags from articles unless the issues have been addressed or he can demonstrate that the tags are no longer needed."
- Four days later, Colonel Warden starts removing cleanup tags again:
- I start a thread on the talk page of an admin who was involved in the last round at ANI. See User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. At least 3 admins show clear disapproval. But, CW is given one last chance:
- Six days later, Colonel Warden tries again. This time, instead of deleting the cleanup tags, he moves them to the very bottom of a long article:
- Nov 21 2010 — Moves orphan, refimprove, onesource, and inline tags to the bottom of the article. Adds a rescue tag to the top of the article. (admin-only diff - page was subsequently deleted)
- The next day, I start a thread on the talk page of the admin who previously gave him a level 3 warning. See User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again. After some discussion, Colonel Warden is indefinitely blocked. The blocking admin starts this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Colonel Warden blocked. The block is largely endorsed by the majority of admins and users who comment in this thread. The minority of opposition eventually leads to the unblocking of Colonel Warden, with the intention of discussing the situation at this RFC/U rather than continuing the discussion at ANI.
- Throughout the day or so that Colonel Warden was blocked, he never acknowledged that his behavior was disruptive or that his behavior with respect to cleanup tags was wrong. In fact, the comments he made on his talk page regarding the block seemed to indicate that he specifically believes he hasn't done anything wrong. The community is left to presume that he has no intention to stop.
Applicable policies and guidelines
Desired outcome
Colonel Warden will voluntarily agree to not delete, move, or modify cleanup templates that appear on any articles. He is welcome to add cleanup tags or {{rescue}} tags to articles. If he believes a tag should be removed, he is welcome to ask another user to remove the tag for him.
Additionally, if Colonel Warden disagrees with the established consensus and guidelines regarding use of cleanup tags, he is welcome to start consensus-building discussions in an attempt to change the guidelines.
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
The timeline above (under Cause of Concern) shows many examples of warnings that were given to Colonel Warden both on his talk page and at the ANI complaint about his behavior.
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
The timeline above (under Cause of Concern) shows several examples of Colonel Warden continuing his disruptive behavior after having been warned multiple times by multiple editors.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
- SnottyWong communicate 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (dispute: edit [prev. cited by SW] summary explicitly acknowledging removal of tags; attempted resolution: warning [only level 2 as previous warning had already been removed and I wasn't aware of it]; failure: Colonel Warden denies removal of tags was intentional, makes no apology & attempts to place the blame on myself.)
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
- Certainly; and there's more, over years. I'll likely be adding an outside view. Jack Merridew 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yup. I have found CW's behaviour to be very dubious, to say the least, over a fair period of time. Depending on how the scope of this RfC develops, I might be adding an outside view myself. Reyk YO! 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Multiple issues with this user have come up, and he hasn't acknowledged them as problems. AniMate 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Like many WP:ARS members, the Col. has a marked tendency to exhibit a battlefield mentality and focus more on "rescuing" articles by any means necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yep. That said, I don't think it's the ARS itself that is to blame for this... it just seems to be a magnet for people that will do anything to thwart consensus when it is clearly time for an article to be deleted. (c.f. A Nobody). Some ARS members do great work and deserve our accolades. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- with two caveats (1) agree with Lar's note about the ARS; and (2) this RFC needs to stay focused on the particular causes of concern raised above. More generalised complaints about CW's editing are only likely to disrupt, rather than help, this RFC reach a productive outcome.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Questions
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q. The proposed resolution refers to all cleanup tags. Has it been established that Colonel Warden exhibits a personal preference for removing cleanup tags regardless of the nature of the tag, or just those which would imply an ultimate deletion of article content? The likes of {{tooshort}} or {{expand}} do not seem to lie within the problem area. Clarification here would help to ensure that Colonel Warden is not prevented from engaging in legitimate cleanup work, nor burdened with additional red tape thereof; additionally, it would help ensure that any sanctions were not weakened or questioned through good-faith actions by Colonel Warden that happened to contradict the terms of the resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
A.
Q.
A.
Response
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}
Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Users endorsing this response
Questions
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
Outside view by Dream Focus
- The first one he removed the reference tag which had been there for two years, no one paying any attention to it, so it rather pointless. Also, why would you need a reference for that? It mentions the songbook its in, linking to that article, and surely you can confirm the information presented in the one sentence of that article through that. [1] The second one you link to [2] has him removing useless tags about needing additional footnotes and references when in fact that article has plenty already in it. The tags were placed the year before, and perhaps someone forgot to remove them once they had added these things. They serve no purpose at all. I didn't bother looking through the rest, since after you make a complaint against something like that, I assume you don't really have a case at all. Since you do complain about the Article Rescue Squadron quite often, I have to wonder if his active role in it is at least in part your motivation for doing this. Dream Focus 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- If the first few examples given above are among the most egregious edits CW has made then I really see no basis for a complaint. They look good faith and can arguably be said to have improved the article by removing unsightly ineffective banners. If the articles are truly poor, an AfD can resolve the issue. It is ludicrous that an editor that goes around saving and cleaning up articles is the object of an RfC when there are vandals with no notable contribution doing the opposite who get no attention. Lambanog (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Proposed solutions
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
Template
1)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.