Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden

Section

@Dreamfocus: this removal of refimprove/morefootnotes involves an article with at least 50% of the article body without footnotes or any other inline citation or clear referencing. Rd232 ^talk 01:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Dreamfocus is confused. Not the first time. ++Lar: t/c 02:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Resorting to personal insults already? Dream Focus 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out that you're confused, or as someone else did, characterizing your outside view as "incomprehensible", isn't a personal attack. You are apparently trying to shoot the messenger and distract attention from the actual problem. Not the first time. IIRC you exhibited this same behavior pattern in A Nobody's RfC/U. You should stop. Aside:Geez you have a huge and annoying signature. It's hard to find where it ends. That's not a personal attack either, in case you were wondering. ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Now you are using a slanderous attack against me, stating I commonly use tactics to distract attention. Ridiculous. Dream Focus 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what's ridiculous is extending critique of two specific incidents to "commonly". Rd232 ^talk 20:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe anyone who read the information in those sections would assume it comes from the official website linked to at the bottom of the article. Dream Focus 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So what? Sections without footnotes or other inline citation sourced to an External Link which is the official website clearly need either morefootnotes or more-references and probably both. Removing the tags that indicate this need for improvement is wrong. Rd232 ^talk 09:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

there's a tag for that, it's "unreferenced section", not "unreferenced." And I point out that using an official website for basic uncontroversial information is explicitly considered appropriate. Further. there is no requirement in policy or guidelines for in-line citations. To quote even the essay WP:INLINE, "Many Wikipedia articles contain inline citations: they are required for Featured Articles, Good Articles, and A-Class Articles" and even that is an essay, and has never been accepted as even a guideline, though it is true that the people at FA have a local consensus for requiring it for FA, and those who disagree simply prefer not to work there rather than bother challenging them. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing sources says "The policy on sourcing is Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." This reflects an increasingly well-established practice in favour of inline citation, because without that you're left with either reliance on a single source or ambiguity as to sourcing. In addition, your point about using an official website for uncontroversial information being appropriate is true - but irrelevant. Articles should not be predominantly sourced to the official website - hence "morereferences" is appropriate. Finally, I don't understand your point about "unreferenced section" - the tag removed without any kind of replacement was "refimprove". Rd232 ^talk 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would additionally note that, where a template denotes a failure to meet core policy ( {{unreferenced}} / WP:V ), the passage of time does not mitigate the failure (and suggest that the template is no longer necessary), but rather aggravates it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If everyone ignores the tag for that long, what makes you think anyone is ever going to bother with it? If you believe something in the article needs citations then you tag that sentence with a citation needed tag. You should have a valid reason. Are people suppose to read through the entire article and try to find out where exactly you believe a citation should go? The refimprove and morefootnotes tags are totally useless. And we are not talking about any tags that for an article that is unreferenced, but one which has enough references already to confirm its notability, but which is tagged as needing more simply because someone thought a longer reference section would look nicer. Dream Focus 04:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(i) Because I myself do "bother" with such articles on a semi-regular basis. (ii) {{unreferenced}} means that "you believe" everything "in the article needs citations", so tagging every sentence (not merely "that sentence") would likely (a) be likely to be laborious & (b) might draw accusations of tag-bombing. Your "Are people suppose to read through the entire article and try to find out where exactly you believe a citation should go?" is quite simply in denial of the intended use of this tag. (iii) (a) I dispute your claim that "refimprove and morefootnotes tags are totally useless." (b) Even if that were true, it would be a reason for TfDing them, not unilaterally removing them from articles without correction of the underlying problem. (iv) Your claim that " someone thought a longer reference section would look nicer" does not WP:AGF. Full, inline citation helps prevent WP:LINKROT and makes it easier to identify irrelevant WP:REFSPAM.
Your "vigorous reality-defying defences of CW" appears to amount to an opinion agreeing with his disagreements with WP:CONSENSUS practice, not evidence that his conflicts with those practices were not WP:DISRUPTIVE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In regard to whether we should have tags on articles, I'm personally unconvinced that we should, at least in the present format. I'd prefer if the tags could be reduced in size the same way {{protected}} can be reduced by adding the parameter 'small=yes'. However, this should be dealt with in a centralized discussion, and not by revert warring on an article by article basis. PhilKnight (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

PhilKnight: I would put to you that that is an issue separate from whether CW's actions which are disruptive of the (current-but-can-change-if-enough-people-want-it) WP:CONSENSUS approach. If we let everybody disrupt consensuses that they (or we) didn't agree with, Wikipedia would collapse into chaos. Why should CW be the exception? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your above comment. Clearly, it's a separate issue, and I didn't say it wasn't. Also, I certainly haven't said that CW should be allowed to be disruptive. What I'm saying is that his opinion on this subject isn't necessarily unreasonable, however that obviously doesn't excuse disruptive behavior. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the earlier thread, I thought you were defending CW's actions. As you weren't, we can leave the argument to eventual TfDs, Village Pump, or wherever it becomes appropriate to discuss potential changes to the consensus on how to use tags. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dream Focus, you're wrong about longstanding unreferenced tags--these are problems that have to be dealt with and should not be trivialized. The older material is generally more problematic than the newer, because checking in earlier years was not as careful. Unreferenced articles must be referenced, and the ones that cannot be referenced after a suitable effort must be deleted. WP:V matters. It's basic. The only point where there is really disagreement is the extent to which people are obliged to try before listing them for deletion. CW knows the importance of WP:V as well as I and Hrafn do, but each of the three of us uses a different strategy for dealing with it. (And I want to say in case it's not clear, that in my opinion Hrafn is one of the people who does try to source before trying to delete--and he, like CW, is very good at it. ) DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG: WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden#Outside comment by Reyk, and my own experience, would suggest that CW's understanding of WP:V is different from mine (and, I would hope, your own). His understanding appears to be that sources are, primarily, necessary to protect articles, and material within articles, from deletion. The need for sources for verifiability appears to be heavily subordinated to that (and often lost completely). The effect is often to disguise WP:OR, not to correct it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the essays WP:PUFF, WP:FAKE and User:Beeblebrox/Adding_sources_as_a_tactical_maneuver illustrate exactly what you are saying, Hrafn. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Please keep it civil

I'm keeping myself out of this RfC, but I ask that the users who are going to be involved and put outside views/vote comments to please not make snide remarks about the ARS like Beeblebrox did]. I appreciate the effort that Lar made and I request for the rest of you to be considerate like him. Silverseren^C 02:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree entirely that this should not be derailed into a discussion on the ARS- as far as that's possible. It should focus as much on the Colonel alone as possible. The trouble is, a lot of the questionable behaviour has come as part of the Colonel's work rescuing articles for the ARS. So I doubt if the ARS will avoid scrutiny and criticism, even if ideally this discussion centers on CW and CW alone. And can we expect the more vocal ARS members to not close their eyes to the community's concerns, not mount vigorous reality-defying defences of CW simply because they agree with his ideology on inclusionism, and not spew vitriol all over CW's critics? Experience suggests that is too much to expect. So if the ARS (or the most vocal segment thereof) want people to lay off them, they ought to return the courtesy. Reyk _YO! 02:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• When they complain about the ARS, I believe they are just referring the handful of editors they commonly see in AFDs that are tagged for Rescue. Why not just call us out by names? Say you don't like this small group because they disagree with you, and you have nothing better to do than follow them around and try to find every possible excuse you have to drive them off? How does this same group of people find their way to every single RFC or whatnot that someone from the ARS gets dragged into? How many dozens of these things have we had to go through already? And why bring up A Nobody, who hasn't edited since April 3th 2010? Does anyone have a problem with any of the specific cases mentioned, or is it just an excuse to gang up on someone from the ARS? I am quite interested in hearing the opinions of editors who aren't regularly going to articles we are trying to rescue and arguing with us. Dream Focus 04:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• "And why bring up A Nobody" -- perhaps because you likewise yawned at their disruption. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removing cleanup tags on articles not up for deletion has little to do with the primary mission of the ARS, i.e., to try to fix articles already nominated for deletion, in that small subset of AfDs where rescue is a plausible option for consideration. Trying to expand the RFC into every aspect of CW's behavior would be unwieldy (and would fairly open up the discussion to listing all the worthy work CW has done), which is why I perceive Snotty limited the RFC to tag removal.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• I didn't intend to be snide, I intended to describe a phenomenon that I have observed. I said "many" not "all." As has been correctly pointed out there are some awesome people there who don't use such tactics but instead actually find and use sources to improve articles. That is exactly what the group was intended to be when it started and those users are to be commended for their efforts. Unfortunately there is a subgroup of users who also happen to be involved with the ARS that use puffery and extremely weak sources in an attempt to at least make an article look like it is properly sourced when it is not, and who show a pattern of taking a tactical approach to deletion in that they are more intent on "winning" than on actually improving a badly written, poorly sourced article. I don't see any reason to back away from the position that Col. Warden is not the only user who has engaged in such behavior, but I will grant that the purpose of this RFC is to discuss one specific editor. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of extremely weak sources is a serious matter, but not one that I've spotted amongst all the hyperbole. Can you substantiate that charge and if so would you be willing to add a view? If the Colonel is using weak sources then we should point that out to him and let him defend the sources in question or promise not to use it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Scope creep of the RFC is already unmanageable based on Bali Ultimate's opinion, which essentially calls for the RfC to be a larger referendum on CW, which is specifically not what Snottywong drafted it to be. This is no doubt going to result in much juicy drama, because its just going to be venting and counter-venting without concrete solutions.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The tagging is a symptom of a wider problem. In order to understand the symptom, which this RFC/U is about (hoping to treat it) it is reasonable to discuss the wider problem. Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• (ec)I disagree with Milowent and SnootyWong seems to think that related issues are relevant as well. All of the issues being discussed appear to have the same root cause - inclusionist zeal. I don't mean that all inclusionists are like CW, but that his ideology is so extreme that he appears to be acting disruptively because of it. That is how my example fits in here as well. It all ought to be looked at.Griswaldo (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, but this user conduct RFC is not on CW's "inclusionist zeal": it is on a specific aspect of his behaviour deemed to be disruptive. User conduct RFCs can only ever have a productive outcome if they are limited in scope to things that the user in question can hope to address. Broader conduct problems rarely get resolved at RFC/U. This RFC/U, for instance, did little other than to waste even more of people's precious time, even though Le Grand Roi / A Nobody is pretty much the canonical example of an editor happy to disrupt the project in any way possible to advance his position on the project's inclusion threshold. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody/Elizabeth Rogan/The pumpkin king/ etc... choose not to participate in the RFC and choose not to heed any of the concerns and complaints aired there. He was indefinitely blocked about six months later. The second thing was not isolated from the first. Then it was that editor's choice that saw him kicked to the curb. Now it is this editor's choice. Look at the RFC as something akin to an intervention. Sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. As the shrinks say, "you have to want to change."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• One difficulty is that there is so much exaggeration and misplaced criticism that this risks degenerating into an inclusionist/deletionist fracas, and any case against him is greatly weakened. I appreciate that the criticism of him for referencing an article and removing an unreferenced template has now been struck. But there still other diffs in the evidence section that I've challenged, and having rebutted half a dozen I'm not particularly inclined to trawl through the rest. Yes there are may be matters that ought to be looked at, but burying them amidst legitimate edits doesn't help make a case. As for Bali Ultimate's view, I have skimmed the colonel's last couple of hundred deleted edits to see if he ever uses CSD prod or AFD, and found examples of him getting articles deleted by all three, which in the absence of a diff to the contrary is scarcely the action of someone who considers deletion as equivalent to murder. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• WereSpielChequers: I'd take your complaint of "exaggeration" a lot more seriously if you hadn't turned SnottyWong's "Removed cleanup and unreferenced tags, made no improvements to the article" into "This is cited as an example of Colonel warden removing a Cleanup tag without good reason", conveniently failing to mention that he removed an {{unreferenced}} from a wholly unreferenced article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 16:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my view "there are still issues that have been raised where Colonel Warden has made mistakes". I've spent too much of my time adding unreferenced tags to unreferenced articles to defend their unwarranted removal. The only part of that example that I criticised was relating to the removal of the cleanup tag. SnottyWong used that example to criticise the Colonel for two things, removing a cleanup tag and removing a valid unreferenced tag without referencing the article. For the avoidance of doubt removing that unreferenced tag without referencing the article was one of the issues that I was alluding to, whilst criticising the removal of the cleanup tag is an example of what I consider to be exaggeration. ϢereSpielChequers 16:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the cleanup tag is a statement of fact; it is not exaggeration. In that particular case the cleanup tag appears unwarranted, so removal is fine, but the big picture is CW too frequently removing tags seemingly indiscriminately. Rd232 ^talk 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The bigger picture is that frequent bad removals of tags would be an issue. It is not a good thing to make it look like there are frequent poor removals of tags by just throwing lots of diffs together and seeing if the mud sticks. Because more of the diffs relate to reasonable tag removal than those that do not then this RfC appears to begin with bad faith mudslinging. Polargeo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

5 of the first 6 are bad removals in whole or in part. CW's defenders aren't helping the discussion by denying this. PS double-checking the other diffs quickly, I don't see any problems with their presentation here either: clearly bad removals in whole or in part. [the Llama hiking unref tag removal was OK, but it clearly needed a refimprove replacing it.] Rd232 ^talk 17:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The evidence section is a bit of a Curate's Egg. If the formulators of the RFC want something useful to come of this it would be helpful if they were to review their case and strike out more of the examples of legitimate editing. Criticising someone for removing an unwarranted cleanup tag doesn't help their case. I've listed several other examples in my view of what I consider to be at best exaggeration - happy to discuss any of the examples I gave, and will retract if someone explains why the Colonel shouldn't have done those edits in that manner. ϢereSpielChequers 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? Of all the diffs, I see only 1 which shouldn't be there. For the others, a couple of descriptive mentions of actions that are OK shouldn't be unduly confusing. In sum, if the evidence is a Curate's Egg, it's because CW's indiscriminate removal of tags is, well, indiscriminate (including removals which are OK with removals which aren't). Rd232 ^talk 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I've listed rather more than one example in my view. If the evidence listed had stuck to examples where Colonel Warden was removing valid cleanup tags without fixing things then most of this discussion would not be happening. There are some unusual and uncommunicative edits - for example I would prefer that he gave an explanation when declining prods. But if we don't like editors doing that we need to change policy - currently he or anyone else is entitled to decline a prod without explanation. ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be that hard to ignore the parts of edits done which are OK, and which are described in the RFC for completeness (wouldn't somebody complain about misrepresentation if the valid parts were ignored?). Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They didn't look to me like they were just described for completeness, for example both the prods were described as "removed prod without explanation". If those Diffs had been more along the lines of "Removal of unreferenced tag whilst leaving the article unreferenced diff diff" then things would have been clear and simple. Alternatively they could have described them as "Whilst removing a prod, removed an unreferenced tag and left the article unreferenced and untagged". That would have focussed attention on problematic editing. ϢereSpielChequers 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So, in essence what you're saying is that CW's actions were acceptable because you don't like the way the RfC was worded. Do we really need to pick everything apart down to this level? I think it's painfully obvious to anyone what this RfC is about, even if it is not presented to your liking. Is there really any question that removing an {{unreferenced}} tag from an article with zero references is inappropriate? Is there really any question that removing an {{orphan}} tag from an article with zero incoming links is inappropriate? Does the fact that the prod was also mentioned somehow invalidate the fact that CW repeatedly removed valid cleanup tags without addressing the issue in any way? And then he was warned about it, and continued. And then there was an ANI thread with a consensus that it was inappropriate, and he still continued. And then he was warned again, and he still continued. And then he was blocked. Is this really so hard to understand? Do we really need to focus on the fact that "well, the inuniverse part of the {{multiple issues}} tag on that one diff was debatable, because there was one sentence in a 400k article which explained that this was part of the transformers universe..." and then somehow try to use that argument to assert that most of the diffs show perfectly normal, appropriate behavior? I'm tempted to start a new section on this talk page which describes the significance of each diff in such a way that an infant could understand it, but I'm not going to waste my time with that because I believe I've already described it satisfactorily in the RfC, even if there might be some extraneous information interspersed. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Is there really any question that removing an {{orphan}} tag from an article with zero incoming links is inappropriate?". Yes, there is and I've done it several times. When the article in question is notable but a relatively obscure subject it'd be daft to try to force links to it into other articles: that'd be akin to spamming. For such articles an {{orphan}} tag is just ugly and functionless. Fences&Windows 23:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely you've read WP:O, in particular the section labeled WP:CANTDEORPHAN, which explicitly encourages you to add an {{orphan}} tag to an article that you can't de-orphan? SnottyWong ^spout 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the people in this RFC seem to be having problems with the difference between "encourage" and "must".

CANTDEORPHAN is a basic help page. It tells you what options you have and what the template parameters are.

Furthermore, there's a difference between an article that "I" can't de-orphan today, and one that I reasonably expect "nobody" to be able to de-orphan. In the latter case, advertising the subject's lack of connection to anything else might not always be the best choice. Editors are expected to use good judgment—and if they weren't, then we'd have orphan templates applied and removed strictly by bot, not humans. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that my saying "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". is fairly summarised as me saying that "CW's actions were acceptable". I checked one quoted example of his removing an orphan tag, Llama hiking currently has three incoming links but only had may only have had two when he removed the orphan tag, yes we have policy that it needed three so I didn't rebut this or even mention the topic of de-orphaning in my view. As for the Transformers example, I don't know if it was only "one sentence in a 400k article which explained that this was part of the transformers universe". Aside from the article actually being less than 40k and with various references to these being toys and the related novels and even who the voice actor was, my point was that the first sentence made it clear that this was a fictional subject. As for the removing of {{unreferenced}} tag from articles with zero references being inappropriate, I'm glad that you agree with me on that issue, and suggest that you consider my suggestion that "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." If this RFC had been focussed on matters such as the removing of {{unreferenced}} tag from articles with zero references then this would have been a much clearer and simpler RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 00:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to see all of the inappropriate parts struck/hidden, so that we can more easily identify the real problems, rather than the "followed the written policy to the letter, but didn't follow my personal preferences" parts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ARS needs to clean house

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The good folk of ARS (and there are many... see for example the story Jclemens gave about Yellow Star, an article highly worthy of rescue, in #12 of my questions) need to clean house. They need to come out and state that they will not tolerate disruptive gaming like CW and AN engaged in and that their mission is to save articles that are worthy, by honorable means only, not by chicanery and loading the articles with crap. Projects in Wikipedia have no way to remove members but by making statements like this, perhaps the disruptive members will find somewhere else to go and the taint around ARS will be removed. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. ARS has an honourable mission - there are surely many articles nominated for deletion with no/little research, and it is good some people dedicate their time to improve/look after such articles. What is bad is a keeping crusade, which is seemingly the tactic of CW, AN etc who will vote to keep pretty much everything even if it has no actual merit. Rescue should actually involve rescuing, not just sticking in a reference that mentions the topic briefly in one sentence. The Jclemens one is a good example of how members of the ARS should be acting. AD 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Like AN engaged in? He isn't around anymore. So, is CW the only one doing things you object to? Why mention the ARS if there is just one guy that bothers you? And he wasn't trying to save the articles by removing the tags, since those articles weren't up for deletion, he just felt the tags were pointless. Dream Focus 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Like it or not, he gives the ARS a bad reputation imo. And so does the flooding of support for CW from its members. AD 22:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• The "taint" around ARS was branded upon it almost immediately after creation, and some have always viewed it that way even after mainstream media sources praised it. This is all nothing new. See User:Milowent/History_of_the_Article_Rescue_Squadron. That's why the RfC was limited in scope to CW's use and removal of tags. I do not approve of everything CW has done, nor do I approve of the many poor AfD nominations made by editors that don't follow WP:BEFORE, that CW and others have worked to improve. We don't advertise all the bad noms, (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elisa Isoardi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACDSee (2nd nomination) off the top of my head in the past week), we just work on them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the ARS should enact a policy whereby ARS members agree to refrain from !voting on articles that have been tagged for rescue. That would solve just about every problem with the ARS. SnottyWong ^gab 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

and presumably, those who are not members refrain from voting delete? DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you're correct. If the ARS didn't vote at rescue-tagged AfD's, then there would be no reason for anyone to patrol rescue-tagged AfD's to counteract the votestacking. SnottyWong ^talk 22:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • This isn't about ARS. Frankly, if this RFC/U gets any more scattershot it might as well be closed there and then. It is certainly the case that removing cleanup tags without doing any work is literally the opposite of what ARS is supposed to stand for, and that "what ARS is supposed to stand for" and "what everyone actually knows ARS stands for" are very different things, but none of that can or will be addressed in this RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Why would any Wikiproject not have its members participate in AFDs about articles that interest them? That doesn't make any sense at all. And really now, stay on topic. Are you going after Colonel Warden again because you believe he did something wrong, or because of your obvious hatred of the ARS? You do show up at every single article tagged for Rescue, and often just criticize it and complain about certain members. If you hate it, why show up at all? Are you just being pointy? Do you look at other wikiprojects AFD list and participate in any of those? Dream Focus 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh, noooo, Dream, you took Snotty's bait! This RFC is not about the ARS or Snotty's views on what its rules should be.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and to be clear, this is not the RfC, this is the talk page of the RfC. So I think we can all take a step back and relax. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 18:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with much of Lar's comments at the top of the section, this is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron. Maybe that should not be a redlink, and maybe it won't be soon, but right now it is. I don't hate the ARS, and I to the best of my recollection I have never been among those who argued that it should be deleted. On the other hand I disagree that the scope of the RFC should be so narrow as to only cover the removal of tags. Let's say that somehow we manage to get the Col. to participate and we arrive a solution to the tagging issue that is acceptable to all parties. Lets say the Col. abides by that agreement religiously from that day forward. The other problems being mentioned will still exist, and we'll have to do another RFC to deal with them. I can't see how that outcome is desirable to anyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

ARS itself cannot clean house. The actions of the people who use its banner are individual actions, and they are individually responsible. Some of the people who are involved in cleanup use it, and some , like myself, never use it. (I am technically a member, because I agree with the stated aims, but I otherwise pay no attention to what is said or done on its pages. ) DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I would suggest that while some members may be on the extreme edge of inclusionists, that does not hold for all members, and there are some pretty solid deletionists out there in the ether. It might be better if everyone listened to the arguments being presented about CW, and weighed them according to their merit, rather than worrying about the ARS. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that bringing the ARS into this helps; Wikiprojects are just loose affiliations of editors, and 'membership' signifies interest rather than any representational role or authority. There are no membership requirements and no oversight. This is a RFC on one user rather than any group to which they may 'belong'. pablo 00:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Applicable policies and guidelines" section

I believe WP:BATTLE should be added here. It is a policy that directly relates to the ongoing issues identified here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I was thinking the same thing earlier today. SnottyWong ^verbalize 22:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have an informal suggestion, and I'd like to suggest it here before placing it as a formal remedy. I suggest instead of arguing about individual behavior we try to solve the fundamental problem: Nobody should remove a properly placed problem tag without either solving the problem or explicitly stating why it is not a problem. Similarly, nobody should list an article for deletion without either trying to solve the problem , or saying explicitly why it is impractical or impossible to do so. DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE already applies to the second part. AD 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

But how many people actually follow WP:BEFORE? :/ Silverseren^C 22:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

How many editors actually do what DGG just said? :/ PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is a mistake to conflate the two issues. I agree that removal of problem tags, prod tags etc should always be accompanied by a meaningful edit summary. pablo 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how bringing AfD into a formal remedy about inappropriate cleanup tag removal has even a hint of relevance. SnottyWong ^chatter 23:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• This user conduct RFC is about one user's conduct (colonel warden's). It is all about, as constructed, that editor's conduct. I suggest if DGG has sitewide policy changes/clarifications to propose, this isn't the right forum (though both his suggestions appear to be solutions in search of a problem; both tagging convention as dealt with at WP:TC and clarified multiple times at AN/I and elsewhere already make the first part of his suggestion clear. Likewise AFD guidelines require nominators to provide a reason why an article fails the various guidelines and policies -- N, V, innapropriate forks, and so on.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re to Pablo X. Two of the first four diffs in the evidence section accuse the Colonel of "Remove prod without explanation". But that is within current policy. If you consider that removal of prod tags "should always be accompanied by a meaningful edit summary" I suggest you try to change the prod policy, not criticise someone who follows the current policy. ϢereSpielChequers 23:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of what is within current policy, and also what that policy recommends. I was agreeing with DGG's suggestion above that "Nobody should remove a properly placed problem tag without either solving the problem or explicitly stating why it is not a problem." pablo 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was actually Snottywong's edit warring to restore the prod tags that breached policy. Ironic, huh? Fences&Windows 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and now the baseless accusations start. Could you provide a diff of where I "edit warred" to restore prod tags? If not, please strike your accusation. SnottyWong ^babble 00:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here. Silverseren^C 02:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hardly an "edit war" but Snottywong clearly did revert the removal of a prod tag, in clear contravention of the policy WP:PROD ("If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith"). However the real tragedy of that article - something that is in no way Snottywong's fault - is that it was proposed for deletion and tagged as an orphan within nine minutes of creation by a newbie editor. Is it really appropriate to slap an {{orphan}} tag on a new article within nine minutes? How many articles are not orphans in that time scale? Surely everyone realizes how bitey that must be for a new editor? Thparkth (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it happens all the time though. Most users don't want to bother checking for dates and things or, good heavens, check whether an article subject is actually notable. No, instead, it's easier to just slap some tags and a PROD on the article. Silverseren^C 02:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That's bad, and we should do whatever we can to reduce that happening (and if editors make a habit of re-adding PROD tags, that should be addressed). But it seems like a red herring here. Rd232 ^talk 12:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that experienced editors like F&W and SilverSeren would understand the difference between a single revert and an edit war. Such exaggeration isn't helping. The edit identified above was made shortly after discovering that CW had been removing cleanup tags on dozens of articles without fixing the problem. I was quickly going through and reverting each of his edits in which he did so. In this case, my revert apparently inadvertently reinstated a prod tag on the article. Characterizing this minor mistake on my part as an "edit war" is, frankly, intentionally dishonest. SnottyWong ^express 18:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, this suggestion is dead on arrival. We're not about to lash together an editor's bad behavior with action on something that isn't policy or even a guideline. "WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE WP:BEFORE" may be the ARS battle-cry, but it has no application to discussing Warden's behavior. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And here comes Tarc with the ARS bashing. I was waiting to hear from you. Silverseren^C 01:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Given certain ARS members appear to be trying to use themselves as human shields in defence of CW's disruption, I think they should expect the consequent bruising. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is so much work to do here, that it is not really possible to do it as carefully as would be desired, and we really need to cooperate--to use tagging and other devices to help each other organize the work, and not for fighting. Tagging has a place, but it is often done poorly -- in every possible direction: too little, too much, or emphasis of the wrong parts of it. This applies to edit summaries too--I see them missing, too brief, too long, too argumentative, completely wrong headed, and every other possible way to do it carelessly--some of this there will always be. When I think things are obvious enough, I do not necessarily explain in detail--and I think that's true of most of the experienced people here who deal with these matters one way or another It is time that everyone understood that if a change is likely to be questioned, the way to avoid most of the question is to say what you;re doing. There are places where we will inevitably have conflicts because of our different views on what the encyclopedia should contain, but we shouldn't have to have them over methods of working. I don't think we want to overemphasize people's errors.

Not only does it cause ill feeling, but it can be counterproductive. There's the matter of glass houses. Those who accuse the people saving articles of improper behavior in doing this should look back ayt all their own work. Have they never nominated articles for deletion in the hope that nobody was paying attention? or assumed something would not be sourceable when it was the other way round? Or said that a reference did not justify the statement when when in fact it did? Or brought articles to AfD repeatedly in the hope they'd eventually get deleted? or engaged in the game of removing content, and then nominating as empty, or the variant of removing all the references on some minor quibble and calling it unreferenced? or of merging and then bit by bit removing the material? t

We who work to preserve articles have by and large not been taking these matters to an/i or rfc. Some of my friends have very much wanted to do so, and I have always advised them against it, because I think we'll come out better in the end being the nice guys than winning the quarrels. But I have often been tempted to take each instance of persistent over-eager deletions there, and to challenge every single improper Speedy, and every dubious close. . We've had an understanding that we shouldn't blame each other for making errors, just as we don't blame each for violating NPA, but if one side is going to bring charges against the other in this unfair fashion, possibly it will no longer be best to continue what I sometimes feel amounts to appeasement. This time, the person being attacked is one of the most effective positive workers at improving articles Wikipedia has ever had. Anyone who shares his goals will want to defend him, because he is on balance an enormous positive force for good here. When he deals with an article, its the better for it, and he deals with a great many of them. DGG ( talk ) 08:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG, are you suggesting a wider request for comment? Your "if one side is going to bring charges against the other in this unfair fashion" seems to suggest that you wish do discuss more than this user's conduct. pablo 11:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't throw me in that brier patch!Bali ultimate (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I have concerns about some of CW actions, and have not endorsed any view yet, but if this RFC is based more on substantial disagreement about the ARS and less about CW's actions as an individual, please, by all means, come out in the open about it. When I read this, cited in a comment about a editor characterized as "confrontational", I have to ask wonder. Better to get it over with if that is the case. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ths RFC is about this one editor's conduct. His defenders would like to distract from that. If there's broader issues that DGG or anyone else would really like to take up (rather than get the rest of us to start taking swings at a tar baby) this aint the place, and they know that.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just CW's "defenders" that are bringing up ARS in their comments. The trout swings both ways--everyone should focus on the conduct of CW, and leave ARS out of it. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too - have closed the section above. pablo 13:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A question for DGG

In this endorsement, you claim "Even for unreferenced, there can be reasonable disagreements about the extent to which the links or information in the article constitute references ."

1. Please explain how "the links or information in" this dif can be interpreted as something that "constitute references ."
2. Please explain how "the links or information in" this dif can be interpreted as something that "constitute references ."
3. Please explain how "the links or information in" this dif can be interpreted as something that "constitute references ."
4. Please explain how "the links or information in" this dif can be interpreted as something that "constitute references ."
5. Please explain how "the links or information in" this dif can be interpreted as something that "constitute references ."

(All difs taken from the RfC.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• The first one is an article that was one sentence long at that time, and links in that sentence went to another Wikipedia article that confirmed the information there, Let's Face It!. I was involved in the discussion between the editor who tagged it and the one that removed it. As I pointed out there, the editor could've spend a few seconds looking for references instead of just mindless slapping on a tag no one ever takes seriously. In the AFD one editor clicked on Google Book search and easily found references. [1] The editor doing the drive-by tagging has a long history of doing that all over the place. I think this all needs to be taken into context. The pointless drive-by tagging of articles, just to add horrible looking banners at their top that no one ever pays attention to anyway, has got to stop. Dream Focus 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's Face It! does not provide WP:RS support for any of the information contained in the Ace in the Hole (Cole Porter song) dif. And not one thing in the rest of your ramble in any way justifies removing a {{unreferenced}} without first providing references. If sources were as easy as you say they were, then why didn't CW add references before removing this tag? I am getting sick to death with 'my dog ate my homework' level excuses being made on behalf of CW -- I find them a in-WP:CIVIL insult to my intelligence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

That is an ignorant and insensitive perspective on cleanup tags, in my opinion. If you've ever done any new page patrolling, you'd know that unreferenced articles are created at a pretty incredible rate. The Special:Newpages backlog is usually hovering around 29 days long, and new articles which haven't been patrolled after 30 days are taken off the list of new pages. Many of these "drive-by taggings" (as you call them) are done by new page patrollers who couldn't possibly find references for all of the articles they are patrolling. The intent is to mark pages which have obvious problems so that other editors can find them and fix them. Unless there were 100 more editors doing new page patrols, this is the only way this process can work. There is not enough time for the quantity of new page patrollers we have to fix the problems on all of the new articles. Drive-by untagging without fixing the problem basically negates the work that the new page patroller did to identify the issue. If we're assigning blame to anyone, it should be on the creator of the article, not the new page patroller who marked the article for improvement. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On #4, see the text that says "Research by Dom. Jean Claire..." This is an in-text citation of a source. There's nothing in WP:V that actually requires citations to be fully written out, enclosed in ref tags, or listed in a separate section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. WP:V requires material to be practically verifiable. Just saying "according to John Doe" is not verifiable. We cannot require an editor to read through every last document published by "Dom. Jean Claire" to verify this article. This is not a referenced article. The extent to which some editors are grasping at straws to rationalize CW's unambiguously inappropriate behavior is bordering on sickening. SnottyWong ^confess 18:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if we pretended that WP:V requires that it be easy to verify the article contents (something it explicitly disclaims), there's nothing in this article that actually requires any citations. WP:V only requires citations when (1) it's a direct quotation, (2) it's been challenged, or (3) the editor—in his best judgment—thinks it's WP:LIKELY to be challenged.

"I notice that there is nothing listed in a ==Reference== section" is IMO not actually a challenge, especially in an article so short that anybody can see that there's no such section. YMMV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I never said that articles need to be easy to verify, I said that verification needs to be practical, i.e. it needs to be possible. WP:V does not "explicitly disclaim" that articles need to be practically verifiable. WP:V does discuss something about how the source doesn't have to be internet-accessible, and other similar things, which are absolutely right. But verifiability is not achieved by simply saying "According to Heywood Jablowme...", at a bare minimum, the title and author of the published document needs to be mentioned so that verifiability is practical, and that someone would not have to comb through every document that has ever existed in order to find the one you're referring to. This is all exceedingly obvious to anyone who has made more than 50 edits to Wikipedia. Anyway, your wikilawyering has successfully gotten us way off-topic here. This is the first time I remember having any contact with you, but you've made your tactics very clear to me. I will probably ignore most of your future comments. SnottyWong ^yak 21:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

first SnottyWong's general question-, then I'll look at the specific articles cited a little later & add my own analysis. There has always been a backlog at NPP, at least for the 4 years I've been here. (SW, you've been here almost as long, so you'll probably remember it also ). Indeed, it was the great multitude of unacceptable articles that kept slipping through at that period that are causing the problems now, as we try to clean up or get rid of them. But we do miss a lot, and perhaps we would do better if more people had time to attend it instead of dealing with charges against each other. The re is also a problem with the quality at NPP. It tends to be much populated by relative beginners, and their tagging tends to be pretty mechanical. We really should organize some way of teaching them, besides the occasional talk page note when one of them does something particularly egregious. I strongly agree with your suggestion that we should 100 more experienced editors there, but I think their role would best be to oversee the tagging of the beginners.

Most articles do not have "curators". They rather have people who fix specific things they happen to look for, and miss many others. Even very experienced people will sometimes miss obvious copyvio. We can't assign blame to new creators--if they make errors, it's because they are still untaught. We should assign blame to ourselves--to the most experienced of us in particular, for not teaching them, for concentrating on improving or deleting articles, not improving the contributor. The most important thing anyone can do at Wikipedia is to teach and encourage new editors. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The "people who fix specific things they happen to look for" will find it a damn sight easier to locate and fix those things if there is a tag identifying the problem placed on the article, no? pablo 19:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. If you're interested in adding references to unreferenced articles, you need only go to Category:Articles lacking sources to find a list of more than a quarter million of them. How does this category collect all of these pages together, you ask? Is there some complicated bot that trolls around all of the articles and figures out which ones have no references? No, the category is created from article patrollers who have added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the article. If we have other editors who are going around removing these tags without adding references, then we are only adding to the incompleteness of this category, which clearly does not help anyone or anything. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 19:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is at least one bot that does exactly that. It tags articles as being unref'd with |auto-yes. Its accuracy is not ideal, but it's usually right.

I might have more sympathy for this claim if the few people who do this were actually in danger of running out of articles to work on. Removing one, or even ten, still leaves them with more than a quarter million articles to go... and removing ten uncontentious articles from the list might usefully focus their attention on uncited BLPs and other disasters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

So it's your opinion that editors should tagged unreferenced articles with {{unreferenced}} only when there are very few unreferenced articles that exist? The fact that there are more than a quarter million unreferenced articles out there means that we should just give up on tracking them? How does that make any sense at all? SnottyWong ^confer 21:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG's points about supporting NPP are something we should try and follow up; it is the most obvious choke point for quality control. Tagging articles appropriately (not too quickly! WP:BITE) is certainly part of that quality control, and indiscriminately removing such tags is disruptive. Occasional errors and differences of interpretation are normal, but the point to be addressed in the RFC is most fundamentally that CW doesn't appear to be aiming for the same ballpark as everyone else. Whether he's removing them indiscriminately I can't quite say, but it looks like it. This is really not too hard for CW to remedy, and shouldn't really be an occasion for a Deletionists v Inclusionists grudge match. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Colonel's own words on the subject make his approach clear enough, here he argues that placing a unreferenced tag is disruptive editing [2] and that only the tag should ever be used. Note that this relates back to link #5 at the top of this section. At the time he removed the tag, the article was three sentences long, had no refs or external links of any kind, and had been in this state for nearly four years [3]. And here [4] he actually seems to be arguing against using sources at all because it somehow forces users to plagiarize those sources. WP:V is right in the five pillars of Wikipedia, it is not just some obscure point of policy, it is part of the very foundation upon which Wikipedia is built. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• That AFD was followed up at WP:V — see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 41#Clarify policy for another editor. The correctness of my position was confirmed by several other editors there including Hans Adler, Blueboar and Jclemens. My position therefore rests upon a firm foundation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• We have had a large amount of misrepresentation (Let's Face It! & "Research by Dom. Jean Claire..." as 'references'), obfuscation (endless details that do not mitigate CW's behaviour) & digression (especially NPP-related), but nothing that provides an, even superficially reasonable, conciliance between DGG's statement and the cited difs (in fact, as far as I can tell, only two of the five difs have even been mentioned). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on "Nazi" comment

I wanted to clarify this a bit because BOZ's "Part the Seconde" addresses it, I believe quite a bit out of context. During an AfD of the entry List of Jewish Nobel laureates one delete voting user (Bulldog) accused a keep voting user (Epeefleche) of canvassing and started a thread on AN/I about it. He also accused Epeefleche of canvassing in the past, related to similar "List of Jewish ..." type entries, insinuating a bias towards promoting Jewishness through listcruft. During the AfD there were all kinds of discussions about Judaism as a religion versus Jewishness as an ethnicity, and so and so forth. In other words this was a context saturated with discussions about Jewish topics of all kinds, and with a great deal of Jewish editors involved as well. When the AN/I discussion turned towards a possible topic ban for Epeefleche, Colonel Warden compared efforts to delete the list to what he called "disreputable tactics", linking the phrase to Nacht und Nebel. While I am firmly against invoking Nazism lightly in any context, I can see how saying "You Nazi", or "they're all a bunch of Nazis", isn't necessarily such a big deal in most contexts. However, to compare the activities of those opposed to keeping a list of prominent Jews on Wikipedia, to a programmatic campaign of Nazi terror, is in my mind "beyond the pale". Now, even to those who still don't think it is beyond the pale, it is clearly 100% disruptive. Most people are going to find this utterly offensive, and they are going to cause all kinds of drama over it. Colonel Warden ought to know that. Unless Colonel Warden has been living under a rock his entire life, devoid of any education in European History, injecting that comment into the conversation is a conscious act of disruption however you slice it. I'm a bit disheartened by BOZ's "Part the Seconde" because it also implies that the offense taken to this comment would not have existed were a friend to have made it. I can emphatically say that for me this is 100% untrue, and especially in a similar context.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Offense, if a friend said it - quite possibly. That degree of drama? Doubt it. Besides, you've spelled out rather clearly that however distasteful and ludicrously overblown, the metaphor was actually rather apposite (in the sense that comparing the roundness of an apple to the roundness of the moon might be apposite). Rd232 ^talk 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Because voting to delete listcruft that happens to relate to a Jewish topic is of the same shape but simply of a lesser scale than rounding up, detaining and killing those who threaten your violently antisemitic regime? I guess I have a very different understanding of what being "apposite" means.Griswaldo (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's apposite like comparing a candle to the Sun is apposite, whilst comparing a candle to the moon is not. This is still true even if comparing candles to the Sun deeply offends, say, Sun-worshippers. Apposite != appropriate. PS I'm assuming you understand the concept of metaphor. Rd232 ^talk 00:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In another RfC/U, an editor was accused of calling another editor an "ignorant POV-pushing fanatical bigoted troll". Griswaldo excused this direct personal attack on the grounds that it was Not the best choice of words but entirely understandable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record that is the Colonel's own highly inaccurate paraphrase on my comments at the prior RfC. I never once condoned the use of that phrase and I certainly did not "excuse" it. In fact I explicitly told the editor that it was my opinion that he should apologize for calling the other editor a bigot. Of course as others point out the two comments are hardly comparable anyway. Colonel do you really have to stoop so low as to mis-characterize my judgments about a very different insult made under very different circumstances in order to cast aspersions? Geez.Griswaldo (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The Nazi comment is outside the scope of the RfC, which is about CW's tagging behavior. If the RfC is going to be about more in a formal sense, someone please let me know because I may want to actually pay attention. I didn't like CW's comment, I didn't like that he was immediately blocked for it when other people get told to "fuck off" and nothing happens to them, but re-raising this unfortunate incident in the RFC et al. is not accomplishing anything.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

e/c Not the same thing at all. The fanatical bigoted troll remark is not nice and perhaps it shouldn't be allowed (on the other hand it's possible that the person was a fanatical bigoted troll; such are frequently found lurking here and there on the website). But either way, is it even in the same ballpark with comparing people to genocidal murders? No. For my part, if someone called me an asshole, or a troll, or a cunt, etc... I'd laugh it off and would oppose their block. That's just name calling. But if someone equates me to a mass-murderer or a torturer, that's something else again. It ascribes odious action and intent, in a way that "you're an asshole" or "you're ignorant" or "you're a troll," does not. The second is entirely offensive and not to be tolerated at all. As for your overall conduct, the nazi thing is small beer and not much under discussion on the rfc page (though illustrative i think of how you actually perceive people who disagree with you; i think you're misquided, wrong, and harm article content. You appear to think people like me are evil. There's a difference between these kinds of positions).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well don't worry Warden; there were many others who found your comment repugnant that did not make similar comments at another RFCU. So, you're still covered. Tarc (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above. I never made any similar comments to his, nor did I condone any as he has suggested. What's next? Unbelievable.Griswaldo (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

For a similar example, here Griswaldo directly accuses another editor of "belligerent self-rghteous ignorance". Colonel Warden (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing that to a Nazi slur? Really? Reyk _YO! 00:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Colonel I guess I know how you're spending your evening. I hope you find something juicy in my edit history, because so far you must be pretty frustrated to only have come up with this piddle paddle. Oh and by the way, this little exercise of yours appears to be quite illustrative, so thanks for showing us all what you're made of.Griswaldo (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@Milowent

The scope of this RFC/U is Colonel Warden's conduct while editing this site. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance; RFC/Us:

Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

So where it says "this RFC/U is intended to focus only on the issue of inappropriate cleanup tag removal" is the beginning, that's wrong? Seems violation of "due process" or whatever to convict him of things not charged in his indictment.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a point. If this continues the way it is going, we will soon be at the place where the conduct or all parties is examined, and nobody ever comes out innocent. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so, this reminds me of something but I fear retaliation from making hyperbolic analogies.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"Retaliation"? This is one of the things I find most disturbing about this project. Editors get into little gangs and then suspect that anyone criticizing something they or their buddies have done is an act of on-Wiki political aggression that needs to be defended. WP:BATTLEGROUND comes to mind. Of course editors without friends simply get mauled by the community and tossed to the curb, but if you have some buddies, oh boy will they mount a defense of your actions no matter what you've done. The same thing also seems to happen when editors share POVs. Say you're voting at an AfD, and someone impeaches the behavior of a like-minded voter, and you get the same gang warfare situation. The problem is that often when someone's actions are impeached they have done something wrong, even if the accusations are also often exaggerated. If editors looked out for their friends by actually counseling them on behaving better instead of emboldening them by mounting an unequivocal defense of their actions we'd all be much better off. Yes no one is perfect and we all make mistakes, but we're never going to learn from our mistakes when our friends say, "oh that guy is just out to get you, I'll show him". Consider also that the language we use in these discussions is not just telling of how we approach them, but can also perpetuate a certain atmosphere. Words like "retaliation" come to mind. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

uh, i was mostly joking, sorry. gang and clique behavior like this exists in any large group, whether it be a high school, corporation, etc. wikipedia is really no different. what can be different is whether we let it bother us or try to work around it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

High school is a place populated by adolescents, but sure clique behavior exists in various adult domains as well. However, it seems particularly bad in online communities, where real world social mechanisms that keep behavior like this in check have less power or are simply non-existent. Just to be clear I'm no saint, nor will I pretend to be, but I've been giving my fair share of apologies recently after noticing not only what I described above, but my own behavior spiraling into antagonism at times. It just really depresses me that we can't have a sober mature look at a problem and help those who cause the problem learn from their mistakes. This situation, to me, seems like the end of a long road on which various complaints have come up about the Colonel, and each time around his defenders have shown up keep him thinking he's done nothing wrong, and each time those who have dealt with him have become more and more frustrated. If some friendly words of advice had been interjected earlier on this journey we might not be here now.Griswaldo (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place populated by adolescents too, in reality and spirit! Yes, its worse online. I wouldn't assume no one has talked privately to the Colonel in the past, but if the RfC decides to impose restrictions on him removing tags I presume he'll honor it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I share your frustration, Griswaldo. I'm all but disengaged from this RfC at this point, because the uselessness of this process is slapping me in the face. Everyone assumes that this is some sort of witch hunt, or that the RfC was started because certain people don't like CW, and then they all feel the need to gang up and "retaliate" in response. The attempts by "the clique" to wikilawyer and rationalize CW's actions in an effort to prove that he's done nothing wrong are absolutely amazing to me. I realize now the level of vandalism that an established editor would actually have to rise to before their clique would be forced to turn on them and agree that they had done something wrong, and we are apparently nowhere near that level. The funny thing is that it's black and white for me (and many others). It's very frustrating, and I find myself often writing responses that are uncivil and then deleting parts of them. It's hard to keep a level head in a situation where reality itself is constantly getting warped and ripped apart by editors who are either intentionally trying to disrupt the process or who are in an extreme stage of denial. I guess I can't stop what I've started, so I'll let it run its course, but the futility of this exercise is now fully setting in. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not futile. Just part of the process. See [5] and [6] and finally [7]. If this RFC yields a change in behavior, great. If not, well, the slow process continues ot lurch forward.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Very quick response to Rd232 (comment on RfC page)

Moved from RFC page Rd232 ^talk 00:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't taken part in this RfC for a number of reasons, mostly because I believe there's a wider issue that will probably need to be addressed at some point. However, I will respond to Rd232 above regarding the Nazi stuff (this was my block) where he says "Mental experiment: how would you have reacted if your closest wikifriend had said it?". Answer: I would have blocked them on the spot. I have a high tolerance for civility blocks but comparing people to Nazis ranks alongside racism, homophobia, death threats etc. on my block scale - i.e. instant block, without exception. Of course, I'm not saying that all my blocks are right, but that's the scale that I work on. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"comparing people to Nazis ranks alongside racism, homophobia, death threats etc. on my block scale". Wow. I think you need to rethink your scale - it sounds like it's a scale of about 1-3! Try 1 to 100, to allow some room for perspective. I mean, jeez, comparing people to Nazis ranks with death threats?? And, for my money, the fact that for most purposes Nazis are of merely historical interest means that blatant homophobia or racism outranks basic Godwin's law nonsense by quite some distance. Frankly, this sort of oversensitivity seems rooted in seeking to treat that Nazis as some kind of epitome of evil, so that invoking their name is quasi-Satanic. Making out the Nazis to be unique like that merely makes it more likely that some day we won't recognise people beginning to tread in their footsteps. Rd232 ^talk 00:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to tread carefully in this area--we vary greatly in age, ethnic background, religions, etc. For many of us, Nazis are not of merely historical interest. Comparing levels of badness is seldom a rewarding exercise. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It may seldom be rewarding, but sadly it is sometimes necessary. And that many people are still around who lived through the historical Nazi era doesn't change the fact that Nazis are not an issue today (especially if you discount a relative handful of thugs who glorify the era whilst having little substantive connection to it). Rd232 ^talk 01:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it is not necessary. Honestly, I doubt it's ever necessary, but here, the comparison isn't civil. I've made mistakes, and I hope that if and when I'm called on them or have the sense to realize them, I'll simple apologize. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

While i'm not sure on which would be worse, Nazis, racism, or homophobia, i'm quite certain that death threats should be farther down the bad scale. Silverseren^C 00:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

" this sort of oversensitivity seems rooted in seeking to treat that Nazis as some kind of epitome of evil" - er, yes, that's because they are culturally used in that sense. No, they're not unique, but to be honest I'd have blocked him for that trivial 24h if he'd invoked the Khmer Rouge or Saddam Hussein - it's still a completely uncivil, groundless, non-collegial thing to do. So no, I won't be re-thinking that scale, thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, your scale doesn't seem to able to distinguish between an actual Nazi (including attendant racism and homophobia) and a metaphorical comparison of someone with a Nazi. That's just wrong. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The sack of Troy, says a voice in his ear. The destruction of Carthage. The Vikings. The Crusades. Ghenghis Kahn. Attila the Hun. The massacre of the Cathars. The witch burnings. The destruction of the Aztec. Ditto the Maya. Ditto the Inca. The Inquisition. Vlad the Impaler. The massacre of the Huguenots. Cromwell in Ireland. The French Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars. The Irish Famine. Slavery in the American South. King Léopold in the Congo. The Russian Revolution. Stalin. Hitler. Hiroshima. Mao. Pol Pot. Idi Amin. Sri Lanka. East Timor. Saddam Hussein. Orxy 02:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The ancient history, is well ancient history and because of that doesn't exactly stir up many emotions. However the contemporary examples would be equally bad in different cultural contexts. For those of us in Western Europe and North America it is Hitler and the Nazis, but I'm sure in Cambodia evoking the Khmer Rouge, and Pol Pot is much more offensive than Hitler. Anyway it is a fact that in the cultural contexts of 99% of Wikipedians working on the English language Wiki Hitler and the Holocaust are considered the epitomes of evil.Griswaldo (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• When Google say "don't be evil", they are not talking about such things. The current fuss about Wikileaks, the Great Firewall and the like are where I'm coming from. Our philosophy here is to be open and inclusive. The idea that we should restrict information and exclude editors from discussions as a matter of policy seems quite wrong. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Very quick response to Black Kite (above)

How does that square with your comments in the following, which concerned an editor who wrote inter alia: "I really do think that enthusiastic Nazis deserve pretty much whatever I can throw at them, and the user I swore and cursed at is politically indistinguishable from an enthusiastic Nazi." Your response to requests that the editor be sanctioned, a view that you did not share, was (in part): "he was talking about the politics of an individual editor. He was certainly abusive, but I don't see racism". I'm having trouble to square your statement above that comparing people to Nazis deserves an instant block, without exception, to your taking what appears to be an opposite view in that discussion, involving a different editor (whose statement, I might add, was much more clearly one of accusing an editor of having Nazi views than was the case here (which concerned tactics, only).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Not in the slightest bit comparable. Firstly, that editor was not blocked for equating anyone with a Nazi. He was blocked for calling someone a "cunt" ([8]). Admittedly he flew off the handle a bit after being blocked - as editors often do - but given that he'd been accused of anti-semitism and was equating that with those he was in conflict with, well... meanwhile, CW equated people who voted on an AfD with Nazis. But the major point - I blocked Warden for 24 hours. Eleland was blocked for 3 months. That's why I suggested it was harsh. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being sufficiently clear. Eleland called a fellow editor an "enthusiastic Nazi". You defended Eleland's having written that. You did not block Eleland for having said that, for any period of timet. You did not suggest that Eleland be blocked for that. That seems a bit at odds with your above statement. (Eleland was separately blocked for other language, but there was extensive discussion, that you took part in, as to whether the "you are a Nazi" remark deserved a block).

At the same time, CW referred to a tactic being used (not an ad hominem remark), did not use the phrase "Nazi", and simply mentioned a tactic that was one the Nazis (and others) had used. And for that, you blocked him. To my mind, those appear not only fairly inconsistent with each other, but the Eleland example appears at odds with your first comment above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'm confused now (1) How, exactly, would I be supposed to block Eleland for his "enthusiastic Nazi" comment when he was already blocked for three months? (2) I did not defend his comments at any time, I only suggested the block length was too long given the provocation he was subjected to, and (3) I think you'll find the only people claiming that Eleland was racist were very heavily involved editors on the other "side" from him - uninvolved editors disagreed, (i.e. one current arbitrator said "Eleland called that comment for what it is: supremacism, or at best it is an intentional jibe intended to infuriate the opposition") as did I. So yet again, your comparison is no comparison. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• 1) If an editor, already blocked, engages in behavior for which they have not been blocked, it is appropriate to add on a block for the second behavior. We don't give editors blocked for infraction A a free pass for infraction B. 2) I read your comments specifically as to his calling people Nazis differently. But any editor here can look at them for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. 3) Interesting -- I wonder if it is possible that any of the claimants here are also "on the other 'side'" of the party being complained about.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Troll bait

this fridge may need to be locked

We seem to have laid out a fair share of it, and they are coming to feed. Absolutely not trying to blame the Col. or any other specific party for this, trolls are trolls and will go where they think they can cause the most trouble, but maybe we should consider semi-protecting the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Watch the Soks!

Did you see that User:Benjiboi (former ARS-regular) was just dinged for running 25 soks? Two of them made pointy edits re teh Colonel and Snottywong. This is why Colonel Warden's issues are inextricably connected to the usual disruptive editors that are (or were;) involved in that, uh, squad. They're all of a piece. Expect moar of this shite from the usuals. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alison dinged another five; They're all of a piece. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Guilt by association? If anyone who ever advocated to save articles should turn out to be a sockmaster and consequently be banned, then they all should be? I could as readily say that anyone who ever nominated an article for deletion should be banned, because some such people have turned out to be sockmasters also. This is a new low for the discussion, except for the nazi nonsense above. If the people in opposition to ColW have to resort to this sort of thing, it implies that either they know their substantive arguments are too weak to be convincing, or that they hold so much malice that they cannot resist the opportunity to supplement them by abuse. Among the considerable number of people who are superior to me at argumentation, you're in my opinion the most skillful of them all. I have no doubt that you could make a very powerful case against any particular editor, particularly such an active one. I have no doubt that you could write a denunciation of the work of this particular editor that would seem extremely convincing and fair indeed (at least to those who would not investigate the actual facts). So why should you resort to this? DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for wording that more eloquently than I ever could. I was about to say something akin to what DGG said before he did so. Silverseren^C 05:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not taking the bait. DGG, you know the behaviours and editors involved as well as the considerable number of concerned editors do. I've said I'll likely offer a view; I offered to help draft a broader focus version of this RfC/U. You also know that I've not been much involved in AfDs for some time and am not particularly familiar with Colonel Warden's editing; mucking through it all would take a lot of time. Seems to me you're daring me to to pick up the task.

I'd have to review the history of this RfC/U itself, but I've seen several sock posts come and go; wonder who they might be... Sure they may just be run of the mill trolls, but mebbe Benjiboi has another ISP/computer/browser, or mebbe they're socks of folks we know. You've been urged to not be an enabler, and I'll add "please". Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not judge people at Wikipedia--I shall never run for arb com. I judge edits and editing, and, in this context, arguments. You have just admitted you rushed to condemn before you looked at the evidence. While you admit you don't know that your charges are true, you use language and innuendo that assumes he has. If you take the view of execution pubishment first and trial afterwards, then any one who speaks in defense or even in extenuation is an enabler: that's the argument for inquisitorial procedure of an inquisitor. By all means take a look. I'll have back tomorrow to read your apology. But let nobody say I did not warn you first about what you seem to be doing. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I've seen enough to be sure of my position. And just look at what others are offering. I have not looked sufficiently to prepare a comprehensive view of the problem. See, I don't keep lists of bad acts, like you-know-who did. It still seems like you're daring me, here; what's next? Meeting on the playground at lunchtime? Please drop the hyperbole such as 'executions' and 'inquisitor' — it's right up there with the Nazi smears. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're dishing out roles for a playground roleplay, can I suggest DGG for the role of Comical Ali? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 09:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you think I am misinterpreting. But if you think I am telling obvious lies, which is what that individual was known for, would you specify what they are, or else retract. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've realized what I should have realized last night, that this part of the discussion is getting nowhere. People will judge adequately by what has already been said. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sigh. So, would anyone like to discuss whether or not we should find an uninvolved admin to consider protecting the main RFC page? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry. Semi would do little, really. I see two dinged soks in the history and they we dealt with in the appropriate manner. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG, you say you do not judge people, just edits and editing behaviour. Yet your outside view is largely speculation about the motives of Colonel Warden's critics, with not a diff to support any of it. How do you justify that? Reyk _YO! 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite correct, I should have said that I try not to judge individuals. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DGG: your 'outside view' exhibits very little evidence of your even 'trying'. Your unsubstantiated statement that you "see the objections here not an objection to what he does, but an objection to the fact that is in able to rescue articles that some people would prefer not to have rescued" is not only a gross violation of WP:AGF, but demonstrates a complete denial of the evidence presented on this RfC, which does not portray isolated "error[s]", but rather a pattern of conscious deceit to hide and disguise articles to shield them from deletion. That denial was what evoked my above, unanswered, question to you and my identification of you with 'Comical Ali'. To date, you have not exhibited even a factually-based judgement of either CW or his opponents -- merely a rush to prejudgement of both. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave DGG be. He made much the same defenses and denials on behalf of A Nobody and a few others of the since perma-banned ("the reason they don't like him is because he does such good work!") He's of course, entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't convince the audience as he likes to say. Just the choir (when you're a jet you're a jet all the way, don't you know).Bali ultimate (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Blue hair

A comment of AniMate's catches my eye as this relates to a recent incident. He says, "He's definitely vengeful. He recreated blue hair which was deleted after a nomination for me, writing yet another substandard article for it. I can't help but feel this was as a result of conflicts with me, since he made no such efforts for purple hair, green hair, or pink hair."

What actually happened in this case was that I was checking out the edit history of an editor at RfA and so came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue hair (2nd nomination) in which she had commented. I didn't bother commenting in the RfA as it seemed like a snow result but the topic of blue hair tickled my fancy and so I checked it out. I found some fascinating scholarship such as Gods' blue hair in Homer and in eighteenth-dynasty Egypt and so restarted the article afresh. This had nothing to do with AniMate. He is an editor with whom I have had little interaction that I recall as being significant and so I do not know what I am supposed to be vengeful about. And how would writing a fresh article be an annoyance for him? Are we not here to write articles?

After this article was created, another editor placed a notability tag upon it. This was Bigger digger, with whom I had had some recent interaction. I didn't agree with the tag, as I had cited a source which was specifically about the topic of blue hair but, as the article was new, decided to leave it alone and see what other editors made of it.

So, AniMate's supposition of vengeance is imaginary and I demonstrated restraint in the matter of tagging in this case.

Colonel Warden (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at the deleted article on Blue hair and in my view it is as the Colonel says an article started afresh and therefore not the sort of recreated article that {{G4}} was intended for. There are two tests one should apply when recreating an article deleted at AFD, similarity to the deleted article and addressing the reasons for the deletion decision. The deleted article in its final version consisted almost entirely of a list of blue haired Characters, and in my view the current Blue hair is not "substantially identical to the deleted version". The closing rationale in the AFD was "Completely random, unsourced list of fictional characters that have blue hair. Additionally, there is nothing in the article to justify why "blue hair" is notable." In my view the Colonel has clearly addressed the first point and I would hope that even his detractors would accept that he has made a good faith attempt to address the second. As an aside I almost succeeded in restraining myself from noting the Wikipedia priority of having an article on blue hair before one on either grey or white hair. ϢereSpielChequers 09:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The article itself would not appear to be AniMate's concern. But I took a look... and found Benjiboi's sock user:Bluedogger mucking about. I found we have long hair, too ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Why does this matter enough that you had to point it out? Silverseren^C 10:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not sure I buy CW's explanation, Benjiboi's sock doesn't concern me. Benjiboi and I got along well, worked together on some things, and generally had a respectful on-wiki relationship. I'm not impressed with his recent actions, but would happily and enthusiastically welcome him back under WP:Standard offer. AniMate 10:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've mixed feelings re Benjiboi; I do much appreciate his work on Senang Hati Foundation. Most of the 30 socks are from just the last few weeks. If he pops over to Wikisource, I'll show him the ropes. I'm mentoring another en:banned user there, now. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I've got mixed feelings about him too, but would really like him to work his way back here. You're exactly the kind of off-site mentor he needs, sockpuppet. AniMate 10:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've watchlisted s:User:Benjiboi, but he's never edited there. I expect he's reading this, so he can find me. Finishing up s:Treasure Island this week... Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

re to Jack Merridew. If Animate wasn't concerned about the article why raise it in the RFC? There have been many criticisms of the colonel raised in this RFC both in the evidence section and elsewhere. If the colonel and others start their response by answering points such as the declining of prods and the writing of articles please take that as a positive - we should be trying to resolve differences here and I believe that much that has been raised is resolvable and explainable. The only criticism that has been struck so far is that he removes unreferenced tags when he adds a reference. I'm obviously relieved that this is no longer part of the case against him, as I think it is a positive that people reference articles. May I now suggest that we focus next on the first issue raised in the evidence - the colonel declines prods without explanation. I have suggested that that be struck, though I'd be be just as happy if it was rephrased as "whilst declining a prod" as that would make it clear that The Colonel like anyone one else is perfectly entitled to decline prods. If that suggestion isn't acceptable to the filers of this RFC, would someone like to explain why they think declining prods without explanation is not good editing, then we can ask the colonel to respond or perhaps agree to give more explanation when he declines prods. ϢereSpielChequers 13:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should be clarified. I do not think that merely recreating an article that has been deleted is a vengeful act. I'm also confused by Reyk's comment regarding the prod of Bugoff--it appears that the prod was not contested, and Reyk's response suggests a lack of concern about the issue. Some of the criticisms, such as this, are very thin indeed. While I do see some significant issues being discussed such as the "Nacht und Nebel" comment, some of this appears to be nit picking. I can well understand that CW ruffles feathers, and I've butted heads with him a couple of times, but generally speaking I see him as a valuable member of the community. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I think at this point the RFC lacks focus. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers; AniMate's term for Colonel Warden's approach was 'vengeful', which I've seen, too; cf my comment in Sjakkalle's view re puputan. AniMate's word for the recreated blue hair was 'substandard' and I appreciate the absurdity of skipping over grey and white ;)

I tidied Sontywong's draft before this went live (converting to use {{diff}}) and in the process noted a diff that didn't match the description (a reftag removal with a ref added). I noted it and Snottywong removed it. Was another missed? I also suggested a wider focus as there are many other issues which keep spilling out in the views and on this talk. I've not been involved in any of the prod/deprod stuff in about a year. Sure, anyone can remove a prod. Should it follow that anyone can systematically remove pretty much every prod they can find? Isn't that the gist of what's being alleged? I think that would amount to systematic disruption; moar intent to confound all aspects of deletion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jack, there are several issues that I covered in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden#Outside_view_by_WereSpielChequers and I'd be interested in your views on them. Some things are hard to check though. For example it was easy to check that two of Llama hiking's current links were there at the time that the colonel removed the orphan tag, but to know whether there was a third you'd need to look at articles that have since been deleted or edited. I've removed a fair few orphan tags in my time, and while I'd expect that the vast majority still have at least three links, there are bound to be some which are now orphans again - so I'd rather give the Colonel the benefit of the doubt on that one. As regards legitimate removal of unreferenced tags, the 8th Nov example has been partly struck out, though I'd prefer if it said "whilst removing an unreferenced tag," and in Wikipedia:Requests for_comment/Colonel Warden#Users_certifying the_basis for_this_dispute Hrafn struck the one I queried within an hour of my querying it. Hrafn went on to list 5 examples of inappropriate removal of unreferenced tags from October and early November at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Colonel_Warden#A_question_for_DGG. So I'm happy to agree with everyone from DGG to Bali and yourself that there was a problem a month ago with the Colonel removing unreferenced tags from unreferenced articles, though for this to be an unresolved problem we would need to see some current examples.

As for whether the Colonel is accused of "systematically remove pretty much every prod they can find? Isn't that the gist of what's being alleged?". As far as I'm concerned this is a completely new issue that I hadn't previously seen raised in this RFC (apologies if it has been the subject of ANI threads or threads on his talkpage, I don't follow every ANI thread and I don't watch his talkpage). I occasionally prod articles, I don't particularly keep tabs on them but I do see articles I've prodded popping up amongst my deleted contributions, so if someone is systematically declining prods they certainly aren't declining all of them, though I agree that it would be disruptive if someone did so. So far we have had evidence given that the Colonel declines prods and does so without explanation, policy allows him to do this, and I would support him in continuing to decline prods, though I would encourage him to give explanations when he does so. Mass declining of prods is a very different issue, and I would be interested to know what scale this alleged to be on, and whether it is sensible or not. Someone who declines prods that always then get uncontentiously deleted at AFD would in my view be achieving little, someone who declines a lot of prods but whose decline is rarely overturned at AFD is clearly an asset to the pedia. If you want to widen the RFC to the issue of mass prodding then some stats would be really helpful. ϢereSpielChequers 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• The suggestion that I "systematically remove pretty much every prod they can find" is very far from the truth. What actually happens is that I patrol prods from the following page: category:Proposed deletion. This category groups prods by day and I try to keep up with them all. A typical day has about 50-100 prods. I scan all the titles and what I'm usually looking for is a topic that that seems familiar in some way. If it is familiar to me then it seems likely that the topic is notable and so I investigate further. I don't have any exact stats but my impression is that I deprod about 1 article per day on average. That's about 1-2% of the total. Representing 1% as 100% seems typical of this RfC - taking a small number of incidents and trying to suggest that all my activity is like that. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I just took a look at Category:Proposed deletion as of 4 December 2010 as I have some catching up to do. I checked out three articles of the 98 listed. Time Doctor sounded interesting but was just some time management software which didn't interest me so I moved on. The prod of sonneteer suggested that the article be redirected to sonnet. I took a look at sonnet to confirm that similar content was in that article and then made the redirect. I didn't bother to mention the prod in my edit summary because prod should not have been used for this. My edit summary focussed upon the substantive change - the creation of a redirect. I then looked at expenditure cascades. This sounded like trickle down so I took a look at that to see if merger was appropriate. After I got the gist of the two topics, I decided that the topic was different and notable and so removed the prod. The prod hadn't given a reason so I didn't dwell on counter-reasons in my edit summary. The article needed a proper lead so I added one with a source and then updated the article's talk page with appropriate templates. So that's my idea of proper prod patrolling — a triage process in which one looks at promising candidates and takes appropriate action depending upon what one finds, having due regard for our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Colonel, that seems fair and reasonable. I try to keep an eye on Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion in a similar manner and I'm sure I average more than 1 incorrect tag cancellation a day, plus the occasional speedy deletion. So from the sound of it I decline a higher proportion of BLP prods than you do normal prods. Would you be willing to put a prod decline reason in your edit summaries? I appreciate that policy only encourages you to do so, but it obviously irritates some of your fellow editors. ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Move to close

Proposal: close the RFC, now. Yes, it was needed, and hopefully the user got something out of it in terms of what the community thinks. However, RFC/Us are supposed to be part of a process of dispute resolution, and at this point it seems more like a process of dispute continuation or even dispute causation. Let's just pull the plug. If the problems persist, I suggest the most plausible option that might actually help is finding a mentor. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed It just seems to have devolved into bickering now. Silverseren^C 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• No. Dispute resolution is hard, and takes time. For once the subject of the RFC is actually engaging and there is a real chance to resolve these issues. But nothing has been resolved yet and I don't think adopting a defeatist attitude is going to help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  Alright, if you think we're actually going to get anywhere with this. Though I think the concerns above about the unnecessary items on the list of issues with CW should be addressed. Silverseren^C 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• No. I'm gonna get to a view this weekend. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, please. This train is not going to get un-wrecked. Everyone knows that there are deeper problems with both CW and the culture he represents to be discussed, but an ever-expanding RFC/U ostensibly on the relatively innocuous activity of removing cleanup tags is not the right place to do it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• An early close would be the best possible outcome at this point. The bickering and scope-creep serves only to dilute what little weight an RFC/U carries in the first place. Thparkth (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• No - I'd rather not see those who have pushed levels of needless verbosity be rewarded for their efforts in achieving a stalemate. As it stands now 45,000 more bytes have been expended discussing the discussion rather than the RFC/U itself. So pardon the tone but how about this; everyone voluntarily shut the fuck up and stop squabbling here. If you have a point to make, then make it within the confines of the actual RfC. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: given that the only specifics of this dispute that CW has responded to was a a single dif that had already been stricken, it would seem to be premature to end this RfC. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 15:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• The whole point of an RFC is to garner wider views on issues of concern and measure the wider levels of support for specific points. So far we can sucessfully gathered the views of the usual suspects and we already have a good idea of what they think. How about we all now stand back and let the uninvolved members of the community chime in rather then trying to shut down discussion and stifling debate. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree There is clearly no consensus on the desired outcomes stated in the RfC asking CW to voluntarily desist from various tagging activities. Given that, further discussion is a waste of time and results in unnecessary bad feeling. Perhaps a statement from CW voluntarily offering to explain tag removals where necessary will alleviate the concerns of others but the reality is that this isn't going anywhere. (P.S. I'm not a usual suspect, merely an unusual one.) --RegentsPark (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment well I'm satisfied if for now this suggestion to close merely helps focus minds on thinking about what the RFC might reasonably achieve, and I do take Spartaz' point about hopefully getting more input from uninvolved people. I don't want to create further meta-discussion that distracts from the substance, so please consider the motion withdrawn. Rd232 ^talk

Sourcing

One of the issues raised by a number of editors is the quality of the colonel's sourcing with this cited by User:Reyk as "a book published in 1997 as a source for an article on a TV episode aired in 2003". Though according to the link it was a book published in 1997 about a TV episode first aired in 1998 and released on DVD in 2003. I'm quite prepared to believe that a book published one year could have information in it on events planned for release the next year, especially if some of the material had already been recorded. But in the circumstances I think it would help to check it. I would be interested in knowing from the Colonel what specific information he sourced from that book, and if anyone else has access to that book it would be helpful to have a neutral person check that reference. Also I'd be interested if Reyk explained why they used the 2003 date and not the 1998 one. ϢereSpielChequers 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I misread the 2003 DVD release date as the original airing date, but 1998 is still later than 1997. And you can confirm for yourself that the source doesn't mention the subject by following the link to the Encyclopedia of Japanese pop culture. It provides a search pane to look for things inside the book, and "Countdown to Destruction" (the name of the episode), "Power Rangers in Space" (the series it was the finale of), and "The Best of the Power Rangers: The Ultimate Rangers" (the DVD) - they are not mentioned at all. Reyk _YO! 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

WSC, you seem unable to recognize that Colonel Warden ever adds irrelevant, misleading, or "bogus" sources to articles that he's endeavoring to rescue. With a little digging, I could cite a number of examples, but I'll confine myself to one that I happen to have been thinking about lately. In his zeal to rescue an article that I had nominated for deletion (for a reason entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of sources), he added a "source" here and commented in the AfD that this somehow "show[ed] the article's potential". The work he cited, however, has nothing to do with the topic of the article, as it deals (insofar as it deals with street names at all) with the naming of streets in a completely different area—how, exactly, were any of his "rescuing" edits relevant either to the rationale for deletion or to any reasonable improvement of the article? (Indeed, his removal of the orphan tag touches on the explicit topic of this RfC.) Deor (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• User:Deor said nothing of this at the time. Now that he challenges the source, I provide a better one and go on to flesh out our coverage of notable Parisian streets and their appearance in literature. See Le Paysan de Paris for a fresh example of my work. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Deor, I have only commented on this one sourcing issue, please don't assume what my opinion might be on others. I have commented on several pieces of "evidence" in this RFC, as a result of my comments a couple of items have been struck or modified. I would welcome your views on any of my outstanding concerns expressed in my view. We have now narrowed this particular one from a 1997 source being used for a 2003 program to a 1997 source being used for a 1998 program. That still looks odd, and I would be interested in the Colonel's response to Reyk's comment above. Personally I don't have this book or any intention of getting a copy, but it would be helpful to know what the Colonel sourced from it, whether the Colonel had access to the physical book or was using the same Google lookup as Reyk mentions, and if so whether it contained information about what was then an unaired program. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Feyd's view

Is there somewhere I can specifically not endorse this? Actually defending the practice of "revenge" deletion noms as an act of selflessness done for the betterment of Wikipedia? What a load of nonsense. I understand sticking up for someone that you respect and share a common philosophy with, but actually defending a bad-faith practice, admitting that the nom was done out of spite rather than out of seeing any genuine reason to delete the article is out of line. This "ends justify the means" mentality is the whole point of this RFC, it saddens me to see someone going to such outrageous lengths to try and justify it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Is there somewhere I can specifically not endorse this?" Here is as good as anywhere, i suppose.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, in Gavin Collins's RFC an editor added a rebuttal section to one of the view segments. Seems fine to me to do something like that, since the idea is to discuss the issues thoroughly. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• What we have here is a small number of cases being represented as a norm. What's actually happening here is that I'm responding to the common complaint that all I do is try to keep articles, being a "rabid inclusionist" or some such falsehood. To address this, I try to work the other side of the street from time to time. I do not find this easy because I try to observe WP:BEFORE and I am usually able to think of a good alternative to deletion as that procedural policy advises. So, when an opportunity to nominate an article for deletion comes along, I will tend to take it. This sometimes arises when I am reading the user page of another user but this should not be a problem provided one observes restraint and does not make a personal crusade out of it by nominating multiple articles in a harassing way. In the case of the chess opening article, it immediately struck me that this was game-guide/how-to material and so this was contrary to WP:NOT. Other editors regularly nominate articles for deletion using the policy WP:NOT and so the idea that I should not be able to do the same seems quite bizarre. Please see WP:SAUCE and the Golden rule for more on that. The nomination was not successful in that case because chess fans turned up to defend their "cruft" but so it goes. I argued in support of policy to give the issue a fair hearing but there was no consensus for this.

After another case or two of this sort, I might see about getting the policy changed. I have been down this road before with WP:DICDEF. I tried nominating articles such as dude for deletion, citing this policy but there was no consensus for deletion in such cases. I therefore sought to reduce WP:DICDEF to a guideline. This seemed to stick but then User:Wolfkeeper flipped out and accused me of being a vandal. He caused a lot of fuss about the matter for some time but has now been banned, I think, and WP:DICDEF has been softened now.

Colonel Warden (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You do sometimes appear to be seeking revenge on those you see as your opponents, but even if that was not the case here, Feyd apparently believed that it was and mounted this defense of it that essentially would exempt you from WP:POINT. I don't think anyone but him is convinced by the weird logic he used though, and holding up ANobody as a figure to emulate certainly doesn't strengthen his case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• I read Feyd's posting just now and didn't quite understand it so I wrote the explanation above to clarify my position. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that the nominator of this RfC, User:Snottywong has nominated multiple pages of mine for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say that "Im not sure whether this exceptional selflessness results from an almost ANobody level of compassion for others" reveals a perspective that I hadn't considered it possible to hold.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I generally find Feyd Huxtable's posts, particularly the longer ones with extended sentences and innovatively sparse punctuation, somewhat difficult to understand. I must admit I haven't ever considered 'compassion' to be relevant to Wikipedia. pablo 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My confusion was more to ascribing it as a major motivation to either A Nobody or Colonel Warden, or thinking of it as something that A Nobody stands as an example in regard to.—Kww(talk) 21:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like I was wrong, one user has actually endorsed this nonsense and stated that they agree in principle with the ideas expressed. How anyone could honestly believe it is ok to make a bad faith deletion nomination to prove a point (again whether or not that is what actually happened) is beyond me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • CW's explanation here at least suggests there was no bad faith behind the noms. Feyd on the other hand seems to be advocating deletion nominations to try "to communicate how unpleasant it is to have your article attacked at AfD". Not good. To CW - I suggest a commitment to lay off fishing around for article creations on the user pages of delete !voters at AfD - even if done in good faith - would help very much here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• I find it astonishing that anyone would think it's OK to nominate an article for deletion just so the creator would know what it feels like, and even more astonishing that anyone would hold up A Nobody as a role model to emulate. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)