Dan Murphy (talk | contribs) →Outside view by Bali ultimate: sheesh, ce |
|||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:# [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#E0F4FE;color=#25900D">Snotty<font color="#225DC8">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|communicate]]</small></sup> 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:# [[User:Snottywong|<span style="font:13px 'Copperplate Gothic Light';border:#AAAACC 1px inset;background-color:#E0F4FE;color=#25900D">Snotty<font color="#225DC8">Wong</font></span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snottywong|communicate]]</small></sup> 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:#<font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (dispute: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_theology&oldid=396656254&diff=396681981 edit] [prev. cited by SW] summary explicitly acknowledging removal of tags; attempted resolution: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=396682360&oldid=396385945 warning] [only level 2 as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=395564300&oldid=395390259 previous warning] had already been removed and I wasn't aware of it]; failure: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatural_theology&action=historysubmit&diff=396686617&oldid=396686122 Colonel Warden denies removal of tags was intentional], makes no apology & attempts to place the blame on myself.) |
:#<font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (dispute: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_theology&oldid=396656254&diff=396681981 edit] [prev. cited by SW] summary explicitly acknowledging removal of tags; attempted resolution: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=396682360&oldid=396385945 warning] [only level 2 as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=395564300&oldid=395390259 previous warning] had already been removed and I wasn't aware of it]; failure: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANatural_theology&action=historysubmit&diff=396686617&oldid=396686122 Colonel Warden denies removal of tags was intentional], makes no apology & attempts to place the blame on myself.) |
||
:#*In response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=400990054&oldid=400989029 this implicit question], I would offer the following further recent examples (having attempted to weed out duplicates & ambiguous cases): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spark_%28fire%29&diff=prev&oldid=397760857][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overwhelming_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=395833806][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brewood&diff=prev&oldid=391211194][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restoration_of_Gregorian_chants&diff=prev&oldid=389945456][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Club_foot_%28furniture%29&diff=prev&oldid=389942524] <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:#*In response to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FColonel_Warden&action=historysubmit&diff=400990054&oldid=400989029 this implicit question], I would offer the following further recent examples (having attempted to weed out duplicates & ambiguous cases): <s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spark_%28fire%29&diff=prev&oldid=397760857]</s>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overwhelming_consensus&diff=prev&oldid=395833806][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brewood&diff=prev&oldid=391211194][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restoration_of_Gregorian_chants&diff=prev&oldid=389945456][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Club_foot_%28furniture%29&diff=prev&oldid=389942524] <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:#**Your first example looked unambiguously legit to me. Editors are still allowed to remove unreferenced tags if they add a reference. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:#**Your first example looked unambiguously legit to me. Editors are still allowed to remove unreferenced tags if they add a reference. ''[[User:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkGreen">Ϣere</span>]][[User talk:WereSpielChequers|<span style="color:DarkRed">Spiel</span>]]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:#***Stricken. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 13:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:#As described above, in the relevant ANI threads, and on my talk page archives. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
:#As described above, in the relevant ANI threads, and on my talk page archives. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 06:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
--- |
--- |
Revision as of 13:38, 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: 22:08, 23 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.)
- As described above, in the relevant ANI threads, and on my talk page archives. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
---
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)
- without caveat - as CW is not a person with just a single fault :) Noting moreover that I am not a "deletionist" Collect (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 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. CW has removed tags like deadend and wikify, which would not ultimately cause the article to be deletable, but it seems to me that he has mostly concentrated on things like unreferenced which are ultimately reasons to delete. Reyk YO! 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
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. [6] The second one you link to [7] 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.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Dream Focus 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Endorse Dream Focus and Lambanog. This rfc was labored over in draft form for weeks and seems to be much ado about (almost) nothing. The first example cited removed a prod and unreferenced tag with an edit summary of "-tags" [8], then the article was sent to AfD and was speedy kept/nomination withdrawn. Its a good thing he questions tags, tag creep without improvement or demonstrated usefulness is a problem.--Milowent • talkblp-r 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- The minor events from last month seem to have stopped. This has become a non-issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I examined the first six actions listed as problematic and do not find the first five particularly problematic. As to the sixth, removal was not ideal but hardly a case for an RfC on user conduct asking for CW to not be allowed to remove tags. On a side note I am no fan of the Article Rescue activities and tend more to the deletionist side. Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Outside view Griswaldo
Disruptive and pointy
I have only run into Colonel Warden once, during a recent series of AfDs and the AN/I discussion brought on by another editor's (User:Epeefleche) canvassing activities during these AfDs. In opposing a proposed topic ban of Epeefleche, Colonel Warden compared those who wanted to delete the entries in question to Nazis. It is worth noting here that the AfDs were all "List of Jewish ..." entries, so analogies to the Holocaust are particularly offensive in that context. For doing this Warden was appropriately blocked. Apparently the block caused all kinds of drama on its own but I did not follow that. The result of the AN/I discussion about Epeefleche also resulted in a block of that editor, which lasted until Epeefleche met the unblocking conditions of the blocking admin. It is important to note that the community was pretty clear that Epeefleche was in the wrong, and therefore supported the block and the unblocking conditions (see AN/I thread linked above). When Epeefleche was finally unblocked, Colonel Warden showed up on his talk page to congratulate Epeefleche for his disruptive behavior by awarding him a barnstar.
Like I said at the outset my experience with this editor is very limited, but from what I have seen his behavior is quite disruptive, and exceedingly pointy. I also get the picture that his motivations, when he is behaving in this way, are all to do with some fanatical urge to keep every and all entries currently on Wikipedia. I can't see how that kind of unfettered article keep fanaticism which crosses the line into disruption is an asset to the project. I hope that either he changes his behavior or some other remedy can be found.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Griswaldo (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure we should be expanding the scope of this RfC to CW's non-tag-related misbehaviour you are right in what you say so I endorse it. Reyk YO! 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Unlike Reyk, I think we should put it all out there, because the totality of his behavior is problematic. I'm Jewish, though not very observant, and the thing that really pissed me off about this wasn't that he said other editors are acting like Nazis. It wasn't an attempt at humor like the Soup Nazi, he said their behavior was in line with the Nacht und Nebel action, an order by Hitler that resulted in political dissidents being rounded up and murdered or sent to concentration camps. That comparison is beyond anything acceptable. AniMate 07:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- I saw this one. Appalling. Much will be put out because there is much of concern. Editors who skate over the line too often but duck back when called build up a huge empoundment of issues that eventually come roaring down on them when the community has had enough. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- fully endorse, as an experienced editor this is some of the worst disruption I have ever seen with complete disregard for WP community. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- CW can certainly be a tad disruptive, aside from the tagging issues. Let us hope that he will learn from this RfC, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Outside view by WereSpielChequers
Editors are reminded that when they edit here their contributions maybe ruthlessly edited by others, and that this includes the removal or repositioning of tags that others believe incorrect or misplaced.
Many Wikipedia articles have cleanup tags for various reasons, most tags were valid when they were first applied, many are still valid now. Removing incorrect or no longer valid tags is a perfectly legitimate way to improve the Pedia.
Colonel Warden is charged with two counts of removing a prod without explanation. Current policy on prods is that editors are encouraged to give an explanation when they decline a prod. So Editors are free to encourage Colonel Warden to provide a rationale when declining prods, but should stop short of filing RFCs or accusing him of breaching policy. If editors wish to tighten policy from "encouraged to" to "must" give a rationale when declining a prod, then they should make a case for changing the policy, not file an RFC on someone who declines prods without giving an explanation.
Removing {{Deadend}} from a stub which was almost but not quite a Deadend is also an unworthy subject of an RFC. Editors who consider that articles are still deadends even when they have one or two links may wish instead to discuss the issue at Template_talk:Dead_end#How many links_are_needed to_remove this_template?
Removing an {{InUniverse}} tag from an article whose first line includes the phrase "is the name of several fictional characters from the various Transformers universes" Seems a legitimate editorial decision to me. It is important that we identify In-Universe articles and amend them to make it clear that the subject is fictional, but such tags cease to have value if they are applied indiscriminately to all articles on fictional subjects. If editors consider that the phrase "is the name of several fictional characters from the various Transformers universes. He is often depicted as" is insufficient to make it clear that the subject of the article is fictional then they are welcome to explain why, but it is thin grounds for filing an RFC on an editor who considers that an adequate sentence to justify removal of an InUniverse tag.
{{Cleanup}} tags are a useful way to indicate that an article needs cleanup. This is cited as an example of Colonel warden removing a Cleanup tag without good reason. However comparing Amish furniture to other articles that are tagged as needing cleanup I'm not sure why that tag is there either, and so have started a thread at Talk:Amish furniture#Cleanup. Perhaps there is a good reason for the tag, but the right place to discuss that is on the talkpage of an article, not in an RFC on an editor who has ruthlessly edited the article by removing a tag that has unclear purpose and little if any value.
Whether cleanup tags belong at the top of an article or at the end is in part an aesthetic issue, as long as they are in the article somewhere the article will appear in the appropriate cleanup category. Editors who have strong opinions as to whether a tag should be positioned at the top or the bottom of the article are reminded of the editwarring policies. Clearly having such tags at the top of the article makes them more visible to our readers, and therefore there is an argument for doing so with tags such as {{unreferenced}} that warn readers that we consider this article below our normal standards. There is also an argument that tags which new editors are most easily tempted to handle such as referencing and expand should be at the top. But neither argument applies to orphan templates. Currently the template documentation implicitly encourages them to be placed at the top by stating that is the easiet way to add them. Editors who care whether Orphan tags should be at the top or the bottom of an article are recommended to discuss the matter at Template_talk:Orphan#Top_or_Bottom?, not in an RFC on one editor who clearly prefers that they be at the end.
Once we filter out the inappropriate/incorrect parts of this RFC there are still issues that have been raised where Colonel Warden has made mistakes, and therefore one should reasonably assume he or she is human. The editors who raised this are welcome to strike the issues where Colonel warden is not in breach of policy, and may choose to refocus the RFC on the remaining items, but I would suggest it would be more appropriate for them to withdraw their RFC and seek to resolve their differences in other ways.
Users who endorse this summary:
- ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Many of the complaints listed here relate to editing behaviour which is well within policy, and which clearly represents a good-faith intention to improve the utility of articles. The requestor would be well-advised to strike out those items which are not unambiguously in breach of policy and within the bounds of good practice. Thparkth (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Outside view by Sjakkalle
I have somewhat mixed feelings about Colonel Warden. On the one hand, he does often do a good job in trying to improve articles in a way which will save them from deletion. On the other hand he has a tendency to personalize issues. There is one incident which left a rather bad taste in my mouth, and which may have been a violation of WP:POINT.
On October 29 this year, I entered a "delete" vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London, an article which Colonel was trying to save, and there was some discussion about the points I made in that AFD. One hour later, Colonel Warden had nominated one of my articles, Stonewall Attack for deletion (AFD link), with a nomination statement which, in Wikipedia jargon, is referred to as WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Not only that, but when the (unanimous) keep votes started coming in, Colonel Warden began rebutting each of them in turn, in a manner which I usually see among overly excited deletionists who are gung-ho on getting something deleted. It surprises me that an editor who spends so much effort in trying to save articles on city streets would fight so hard to delete a topic which has at least two or three books written about it.
Users who endorse this summary:
-->
Outside view by Bali ultimate
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae tar baby, as will probably be a tactic here. There will be case by case dissections of tags removed, and arguments how, in each instance, if you stretch assume good faith to near breaking you can see a way in which it was an honest mistake. And if the many instances of redirects, renames and merges performed in the middle of afds, uses of terrible sources from commercial sales sites, the seeming misunderstanding of written material etc... are brought up, the tactic will be to once more get bogged down in minutiae, rather than focusing on the big picture.
This narrow issue is part of a much larger, long-standing pattern. The big picture is this: Col. Warden has an extreme ideology that appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder. In his quest to save articles, he is willing to confound any process, run roughshod over any consensus, do anything to conceal the fact that problematic articles exist (the reason he was mucking about with the tags that brought this all up). His behavior has three results: One, he creates Okip/A Nobody levels of battleground and unpleasantness for other editors. Two, his interventions frequently lead to the construction/retention of not just bad articles, but misleading articles. Three, the core-level of contempt he demonstrates for those who disagree with them (Nazi name-calling bad, but logic-free game-playing is in my world far worse) lowers the quality of argument and drives competent editors away. Dealing with the "tag" issue in isolation will just shift the disruption to other, related areas.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Bali ultimate (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Reyk YO! 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:36, 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.