Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/PBS

Question about Moonraker's comment

Can both Moonraker2 and Parrot of Doom address Moonraker's assertion that this is a conflict between two editors' views of what belongs in the Guy Fawkes Night article? This is a weak foundation for an argument, and particularly this one. The primary influence regarding what goes in an article should not be from individual editors, but what sources state. If both editors are approaching this issue from this perspective, urging the bits of what they want in the article to stay despite how sources treat contemporary observations of this event, there is a significant disconnect between how editors are behaving and how the article should be constructed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the RFC is mostly about PBS's long-term behaviour and uses the debacle at Guy Fawkes Night only to illustrate. Hopefully other editors who've had similar battles can post their more informed experiences here.

The first occasion on which I encountered PBS was at Hanged, drawn and quartered, but his tendentious editing on GFN was the straw that broke the camel's back. When I had a look around Wikipedia to see what I could find out about him, I was intrigued to see so many familiar editors had urged him to change his ways, and annoyed that he apparently hasn't. This is why I started the RFC; if PBS doesn't heed the comments of experienced editors on this page, if necessary, steps can be taken to ensure that if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia, he is compelled to comply.

Guy Fawkes Night uses two main sources, David Cressy's excellent "The Fifth of November Remembered" (quoted by numerous other sources) and James Sharpe's Remember, remember: a cultural history of Guy Fawkes Day, at 200 pages of prose the most comprehensive and detailed study I've yet found. Ronald Hutton's book is also worth studying, and is also used. Cressy's approximately 20-page work goes right from 1605 to the end of the 20th century, but the vast majority details the religious and social aspects of the day. Only a single paragraph covers the late 20th century celebrations, and much of that is to do with health and safety, and fireworks. Elsewhere a minor mention is given to the burning of effigies of Margaret Thatcher, John Major et al. Sharpe spends pages 175-185 discussing the celebrations as they were held in 2004, but this mostly details health and safety legislation, the nuisance of fireworks, the danger to society of things getting out of hand, and the impact on pets. I'm not sure that this wouldn't be changing the focus of the article from Guy Fawkes Night to Health and Safety culture, and so I've summarised it with Cressy's quote on the day's decline, and David Cannadine's quote on Halloween, which says much the same thing, but more eloquently than I could. So far I haven't seen any expert sources which give an equal weighting to the modern celebration and its history, and I haven't seen anyone else attempt to present them, either. Neither source pays foreign celebrations much attention, apart from Pope Day. But as I've implied above, I would rather this discussion take place at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker 2 is getting away from the point of the RfC. Generally those that "support PoD" have disagreed with the way PBS has gone about imposing changes to the article rather than "supporting PoDs vision" for it. I, for one, would be quite happy to see more about present day celebrations providing the information is backed up by good quality sources but I wouldn't want to see the article go back to the mess that it was before PoD decided to rewrite it. However, this is not a discussion that's relevant to this RfC. Richerman (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

That sums it up nicely for me too. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, PoD, that's half of what I wanted to see. I'd like Moonraker2 to weigh in here to assert that he and PBS have accessed comprehensive sources and they mention the info about 20th century observations. If PBS et al are approaching editing Guy Fawkes Night with the view that Wikipedia's editors should determine what goes into an article more than what the best and most comprehensive sources have to say about more recent issues, and this is what I assume is going on, then this is a conflict reflected by the changes Wikipedia has gone through from the idealist 2000-2005 version of Wikipedia to the more cynical and realistic one that puts reliability and verifiability (with appropriate emphasis on weight) at a much higher priority than what individual editors can bring.

So if this is the case, then of course editors who understand that articles should be constructed using the most comprehensive sources will have a common notion about what should be in an article. And editors who do not agree with or understand this shift come into conflict with the changes Wikipedia has gone through. This seems like an obvious and simple explanation why there are two solid camps and has little to do with any cabal. --Moni3 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment by Moni3 (talk · contribs), a most astute analysis of the situation. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right Moni3. Just look at who is in each camp, and think about what they have in common. There's no club here, just light against darkness. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I can promise anyone reading here that I have tried very hard to satisfy the requests for more information on the modern celebration, and its observation in other countries. If I'd found anything of note, it would be in the article. Others are welcome to try, I'm not bad at searching for these things but I can't say I know every avenue to explore. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

While this is an interesting question, it does not seem to me to be at the heart of the present request for comment, which is about Parrot of Doom's criticisms of PBS, and not really about who is right or wrong in the division of opinion at the Guy Fawkes Night article mentioned in my summary. As Parrot of Doom says above, "the RFC is mostly about PBS's long-term behaviour and uses the debacle at Guy Fawkes Night only to illustrate". The background I gave in my summary was more for context than anything else, and I made it clear that a full response would call for a substantial piece of work. Moni3 asks "I'd like Moonraker2 to weigh in here to assert that he and PBS have accessed comprehensive sources and they mention the info about 20th century observations", but given that I think we are straying off the point I say only what follows.

Parrot of Doom has said above "Guy Fawkes Night uses two main sources, David Cressy's excellent The Fifth of November Remembered (quoted by numerous other sources) and James Sharpe's Remember, remember: a cultural history of Guy Fawkes Day, at 200 pages of prose the most comprehensive and detailed study I've yet found... Neither source pays foreign celebrations much attention, apart from Pope Day." (When Parrot of Doom refers to "foreign celebrations" I take it he means "overseas celebrations".) As someone else has suggested, relying on sources with a limited scope should not mean that the article adopts that limited scope.

David Cressy's The Fifth of November Remembered has information up to the end of the 20th century, although it is mostly interested in the event within the British Isles. When dealing with a topic which reaches out not only to North America and the West Indies but also to Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand (in short, to the whole of the English-speaking world), I do not think it is realistic to expect any sources to give a comprehensive coverage of all of the places which have marked the Fifth of November or still do. For the contemporary event, and for the event around the world, the two sources chiefly relied on at present need to be supplemented by a variety of others. The Encyclopedia of Observances, Holidays and Celebrations (2007) is one which comes to mind, as under Guy Fawkes Night it does attempt to range over the local customs in the UK, the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) and the Caribbean, although in a limited way. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

" The Encyclopedia of Observances, Holidays and Celebrations" - since that book clearly contains content copied from Wikipedia and is therefore completely unreliable, perhaps you should remove it from your mind. Parrot of Doom 06:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Re Moonraker, I agree that this discussion is a tangent to the overall RfC, but it directly addresses your comment, which you made about the Guy Fawkes Night article. There does not seem to be a way to clarify statements made by those commenting on the RfC other than to ask for clarification on the talk page, as I have done. You characterized the conflict as being about the older observations of Guy Fawkes Night vs. more current observations when it appears to me that the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions. Where the first would mean there are simply two strong-headed editors who continue to argue and whatnot, the latter means that PBS does not agree with or understand that material in the article should come from comprehensive sources, not what the contributing editors think should go in the article. This is a fundamental and significant difference, and if PBS does indeed see Wikipedia this way--that editors decide what should go in articles despite what reliable and comprehensive sources have to say about the material overall, he's going to come into conflict over and over--and more likely the conflicts will escalate when the quality of the articles he edits are higher. The group of editors "sharing PoD's vision" are probably going to be editing GAs and FAs. I hope you can see where this is going... --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Moni3, you said "You characterized the conflict as being about the older observations of Guy Fawkes Night vs. more current observations". That is quite different from what I said, which was "essentially between those supporting Parrot of Doom's view that this is an historical topic with a "trivial" contemporary aspect and those supporting PBS's view that it is a contemporary topic with a significant history". However, you go on to say "...when it appears to me that the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions... the latter means that PBS does not agree with or understand that material in the article should come from comprehensive sources." I still believe the case you are trying to make here is a red herring, so far as this RFC is concerned, but as I explained above it does not seem to me that the two so-called "comprehensive sources" are comprehensive at all. They do not deal with Guy Fawkes Night as a contemporary topic (that is, as a 21st century topic) and their focus is on the British Isles. I do not agree that "the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions", that misrepresents the position. Everyone accepts that in a Good Article all material must be verifiable by being based on reliable sources. However, if you begin by selecting sources which do not cover certain aspects of a topic, then other sources will be needed to provide the information which would otherwise be lacking. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then the onus is clearly on you to provide those high quality reliable sources that you believe to have been neglected, something that you have signally failed to do. We are a tertiary source simply reflecting what the secondary sources say. It seems to me that you and PBS share a common misunderstanding of how articles ought to be sourced. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker, did you or Philip supply good sources that were rejected, and if yes, can you give examples? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Answering only for myself, I provided some good sources which were mostly accepted. I am not going to try to reply to this question for PBS, because (1) there is too much work in it, (2) I do not think it is for me to speak for PBS, and (3) I thought we had agreed that such questions about the Guy Fawkes Night article are not at the heart of the RFC, which is about the conduct of PBS. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Always a good idea to stop digging when you're in a hole. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A very quick count appears to show that those endorsing this RfC, including PoD himself, have produced 84 FAs, but in the red corner none. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I had come to a similar conclusion - that is, that the concerns about PBS stem almost entirely from among that small subset of editors who place great emphasis on the FA process. As PoD says elsewhere, "He's keeping me from doing what I enjoy, which is writing half decent articles". I'm sure that's true, but it is also true that WP has many facets, and, like it or not (and I suspect you don't) many experienced and equally conscientious members of the WP community don't place quite the same high level of importance on that particular aspect of WP involvement, or its procedures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether I like it or not is neither here nor there; many things happen here that I don't like. What matters here is that the less competent are refusing to learn from the more competent, and insisting that their incompetency is the wiki-way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that Wikipedia is more at a point of improving existing articles instead of writing new articles. Eventually all the articles will be fairly decent. In the meantime, for those who work extremely hard to bring a page to GA or FA status, it's disconcerting to read the comments above. Moreover, it underscores Moni's point. In my view editors should not impose their vision of how a page should be; instead we must go to the sources (books!), take the time to read, and follow the information provided in the best sources available. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(Tangential but still pertinent:) Of course it is equally "disconcerting" for those editors who think that a high priority should be given to encouraging and broadening input to WP, to see some articles being, effectively, seen as "finished" and signed off by (unquestionably highly skilled) editors who see WP as in some way being finite, and capable of "completion". That is one reason why some see the GA and FA processes as flawed, and don't give a high priority to being involved in them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that Moni3 (perhaps not for the first time) has hit on the crux of the issue here. If I was writing a book or an article on Guy Fawkes Night then I would feel free to include my own observations on the event, but we're trying to do something different here; write an encyclopedia article that has to be constrained by what high quality reliable sources say rather than what I or anyone else believes to be true. It's rather telling that no such sources on the 21st-century celebrations have yet been offered. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

They would be most likely to be offered by those whose interest is in GFN as a contemporary event, who I confess don't include me, even though I do agree in principle with PBS's view of what the article should be about. Of course, sourcing recent events is always more challenging than sourcing subjects which have been well studied, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidently. So what are they? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is outside the area of my interest and I do not have the answer. In general, as no one has suggested any comprehensive sources on GFN around the world (or even in the United Kingdom) in the 21st century, the information is going to be in a variety of sources dealing with each country: such as general works about popular traditions and culture and national newspapers of record, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Those are not reliable sources on a par with peer-reviewed specific studies, but if we are to cover contemporary events at all we need to use them and do. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus of RfC

This RfC isn't about the Guy Fawkes article. It's about a very long-term problem of disruption from Philip. It's unfortunate that a small number of editors have taken a myopic view about that, because supporting Philip will make it harder for him to see that there really is a problem here—and there really is, Moonraker, by any standard. The aim of the RfC should be to describe it fairly and accurately, then try to find a solution. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree that this RfC isn't about the Guy Fawkes article, SlimVirgin, and I agree too if you mean the Guy Fawkes Night article. When you say "It's about a very long-term problem of disruption from Philip", my own experience is not of disruption by PBS, even short-term disruption, and you have seen what has been said above. Apart from that difference, we seem to agree on not wanting to go down a side-alley. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've only interacted with Philip on this article, Moonraker; I don't know that for sure, it's just a guess. If that's the case, you may not be aware that the approach taken at that article is just one example of an issue that stretches back years, and covers multiple articles, policies, and guidelines, and really has gone beyond the point where action is needed. The difficulty lies in taking time to describe it, and collect diffs. That's the only reason action hasn't been taken before this, that it's so horribly time-comsuming. And so it has been allowed to continue, way past its sell-by date. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the Guy Fawkes Night page, my experience of PBS is mostly in articles on the 17th century in England, most of them fairly obscure. That's the area where our interests most overlap. He is a solid, capable contributor and I like his work. Parrot of Doom asked me to read this ANI, and I replied that I thought PBS was defending himself when attacked. See the conversation below, in which I thought PBS behaved very courteously under attack. This is pretty typical of what I have been observing. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Extract from Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archives/4

Why refer to the guideline as "your precious guideline", and why accuse PBS of "an intent to disrupt"? It clearly isn't so. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this Moonraker. It might help you understand exactly what kind of editor PBS is. Parrot of Doom 12:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque il se défend. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you post that to give the impression that you're intelligent, or as is more likely, pretentious? Parrot of Doom 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to develop a sense of humour, Parrot of Doom. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nev1 please could you explain to me why you think that the version you reverted to is preferable to that recommended in the guidelines? -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

From the history of the article: "16:26, 19 April 2011 Nev1 (Undid edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk), the explanation is there if you care to read it, however I feel that reitterating it is feeding deliberate trolling)" There is no deliberate tolling by me and I do not think it helps to accuse a fellow editor of such behaviour. I think it would be far more constructive if you could indicate with a link or a time stamp, which answer to which you are referring. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see another RfC in your future PBS, and a likely desysopping if you don't start to get your arse in gear. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look further up this section you will see that I asked you a question. "Please explain why it is not better to go with the common headings for these sections?" you have not yet answered that question, but you have still reverted my edit. Please could you answer. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Find something useful to do, PBS. Rome will not fall if you don't get your way here. In fact there are about 3 million articles begging for someone to spend as much time adding references and providing more information as you have demanding that this edit be taken seriously. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the edits I have made to this page are useful and improve it. You made a revert, of one of those edit, I have asked you to explain that revert in terms of policies and guidelines, a courtesy I extended to you when you asked me to justify my edit, and I would appreciated if you would extend to me the same courtesy. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That may be your opinion but it certainly isn't mine. You've been, and are continuing to be, a complete PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's illustrative of the problem, Moonraker. Looking at diffs in isolation can present a very different picture. It's the pattern that matters, and it's difficult to convey without doing a lot of work digging up whole conversations. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Slim, here. A review of the entirety of what the RFC is about, which is spelled out in a number of diffs and is what the focus should properly be on, does not show this editor to be "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational." Nor does it reflect a mere personal dispute with Parrot. Quite the opposite, on both counts. I presume that most editors commenting are reading all the diffs, which is why the overwhelming majority at this point (and every one of the most senior editors, who have more edits than I have) have supported the view that there is a significant problem here that needs to be addressed. If for some reason a minority fails to see it, well -- that happens all the time. But if it is because they are turning Nelson's eye to the entirety of the diffs presented, the community would be better served by them reading the diffs and ... if as I expect they will read them with an open mind ... perhaps deigning to join the consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If not "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational" then overwhelmingly so; certainly more so than those pursuing the present grievances against PBS, at least one of whom could almost be called "unfailingly angry, vitriolic, and irrational". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

And who might that be? And why do you find it so difficult to discuss the issues rather than the personalities? Believe me, there are no RfA Brownie points in this for you Moonraker. Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Moon -- That's your view after reading all the diffs? And not just -- as your post indicated -- focusing on your personal interaction? I'm flabbergasted. I'm with the strong consensus that finds (looking at all the diffs) that this editor has a long-term history of belligerency in trying to impose his way against consensus on a number of articles. It has been flagrant, and long-standing. Either you're not reading the diffs, or your "interpretation" of the diffs is very much at odds with the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I said "If not "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational" then overwhelmingly so", by which I was referring to his general conduct as I have seen it over the years, taking account of the diffs. PBS has been around on Wikipedia for a very long time, and the diffs in question are clearly not representative of his general editing - frankly, in a process like this they are bound to be selective. I could produce some long strings of diffs showing some of those who are sniping at PBS being far more belligerent in seeking to impose their views on others, but this RFC is not about their conduct and I see no good purpose in it. All the same, there are faults on all sides here. We need to see a fuller picture and I suppose we shan't do so until PBS makes his own response. Unhappily, I see he has made no edits to the English Wikipedia since Parrot of Doom left this note on his talk page nearly three days ago. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

From what I have read I have to disagee with what Moonraker sees as "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational". My interpretation is calculated and niggling done in a "calm and courteous" manner guaranteed to wind other editors up. --J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

J3Mrs seems to be agreeing with "calm and courteous" but adding "calculated and niggling". So far as that's intended negatively, I'm not sure I agree with it, but both words have a positive side. In my view in a historian "calculated and niggling" have much to be said for them. In reply to "a "calm and courteous" manner guaranteed to wind other editors up", perhaps those who are wound up by calmness and courtesy should learn to be more tolerant of them! Moonraker2 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You completely misinterpret my intentions, perhaps I should have said "calm and calculated trolling".--J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that not rather gratuitously insulting? We define a troll as "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". I have never seen PBS posting any inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Frankly, the use of the word "troll" here strikes me as inflammatory and off-topic. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker's definition of trolling and mine obviously aren't the same. The very best trolls are so much more subtle than he/she appears to think. Persistent but "polite" asking the same question repeatedly serving little or no purpose, reverting so that another editor gets involved in 3RR (while making certain he abides by the letter, but not the spirit, of the rule), inserting how? why? and what? tags are the sort of things I have in mind. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you meant that PBS's calm manner is in fact intentionally provocative, that is what you should have said, so that we can be clear. OK, I'm now trying to keep score. It is alleged that PBS is: (a) "disruptive", but that that can only be seen by examining a huge number of diffs; (b) harassing PoD (this would be the policy interpretation of PoD's view that PBS's editing spoils PoD's editing enjoyment, if done deliberately); (c) a troll with good manners. I would argue that there are other explanations of certain attitudes. I think PoD and PBS both care about writing history, but have different approaches to style, and context. Not so surprising. Also to policy; and I'm a bit concerned (to put it mildly) about some of the advice PoD is getting (if this is really a case for WP:HARASS to be invoked–not that I think it is–we should be looking in quite different places, and the focus has been wrong so far). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker completely misinterpreted my comment but perhaps I should have been more circumspect. CM's summary "PBS's calm manner is in fact intentionally provocative" is indeed more eloquent. Thank you for that. I too felt irritated by PBS's input on the Guy Fawkes talk page where he did indeed provoke "an emotional response" from PoD.

'PBS is..."disruptive", but that that can only be seen by examining a huge number of diffs.' Well, yes - isn't that exactly the point? He has been disruptive over a long period of time and you would need to look at a lot of diffs to see that. Richerman (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to represent fairly what was being alleged. Since I don't believe it myself, I'm glad I have come reasonably close to doing that. In my view, such allegations can be used simply as an excuse to rake up past conflicts which do not conform to any pattern, but just represent selectively the experience of editing here in any contentious area (cf. use of the Dresden article below). And this thing of never having quite enough evidence to present as a complete case reminds me of something ... got it ... conspiracy theorists who always think that there is going to be a clincher round the corner. I have thought that the guideline definition of "disruption" is flawed since the point in 2008 when it appeared clear that it was going to be used to argue that those who edited within the rules actually deviously weren't doing that. Not that the page is useless, but the scope for wikilawyering with it is uncomfortably large. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of disruption

I'm unclear if the rules allow for further evidence to be added on an RFC's talk page, but here we go anyway:

• Talk page discussion on References section - prompted by a series of reversions in August 2008 - the edit rationales are enlightening. Parrot of Doom 06:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not disruption. It's an exchange of views. Ironic that User:Butwhatdoiknow has a later 3RR in their block log, given the tone of comment. But these things happen, i.e. different perspectives clashing to some extent.

While you are clearly tenacious in research all round, which is admirable, and while Wikipedia:Disruptive editing does exist and is a behavioural guideline, I have found in recent times its appeal to some sort of gestalt thinking to be tendentious in itself. As with many of our guideline pages, the nutshell is more fruitful to think about than taking the details as gospel.

Anyway mediation would be a good idea, since it is based on trying to get parties to understand what the other side is trying to achieve, rather than framing disputes in terms inferred from ever larger numbers of diffs. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If we supply diffs, there are too many, but if we don't, people don't see the pattern. The bottom line is that Philip tends to focus on issues he's not particularly good at, but is very stubborn about insisting his opinion is correct, which is not a good combination. If he doesn't recognize this, the problem will continue, with all the trouble that causes the editors forced to deal with him, and eventually I think it will lead to sanctions, so it's in his interests too to get it sorted.

It would help if the people defending him could persuade him to change his approach. What would help a great deal would be if he could identify where his strengths lie, and minimize his involvement in areas where he's weak, or at least if he's editing in those areas learn to bear in mind that his personal opinions might be wrong. That would make a huge difference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That is only one way of looking at it: I happen to know of parts of PBS's editing where he is good at what he is doing (I met him working over a copyvio issue, he is a good historian, and has done admirable template work). Quite another "pattern", which is why I said gestalt. Consistent with what you're saying, 2008 is not a good source of diffs (one point), because we all live and learn on the site, while others who have been annoyed at us in the past may make no allowances for that. (Old diffs are quite valid if this ever comes to the ArbCom, but arbs also know what to make of them.) The second point about this diff is that getting to the bottom of what people are meaning by terms such as "citation" is very far from a waste of time: quite the opposite. PBS does give lengthy justifications of his positions. You are saying "stubborn", but this diff at issue and the ANI discussion seem more to me like the verbal right of self-defense, which we all have to use on occasion when others seem to be accusing us of not being thoughtful in what we do as editors.

Put it this way, who would have thought that Guy Fawkes Night would be a contentious area in terms of the scope of topic? As sectarian, possibly. Your "areas where he's weak" refers to traditional British festivals? I don't think so. I admire both editors at the centre of this debate, and have as much a wish as anyone to sort out this business. I suppose neither PBS nor PoD will admit that their vision of the topic's scope is actually wrong; and I don't really see that they have to, but all editors should play by the rules. Going forward the content issue needs to be addressed in that way. A pile-on here ought not to be necessary for all to agree on that point. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Guy Fawkes article was only the latest example; it's misleading to focus on it too much. I don't really want to list the weaknesses. Suffice to say, there are problems with writing, and it can often be difficult to understand what's meant, yet editors are expected to respond to post after post—sometimes for months on end—or be reverted for not responding. I'm not thinking of any particular year; it continues now as before. Perhaps I'll try to find a good example.

Charles, you say he's a good historian. Could you cite some examples of this? It would help to see something concrete. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that some of the people who are being caricatured as "defending PBS" are not necessarily defending him at all - certainly not over every specific instance. In my own case, so far as I can remember I have never had any significant direct interaction with PBS, either positive or negative, and in the absence of that am unwilling to make a judgement. Our views happened to coincide over some (not all) aspects of the contents of the GFN article, and my concerns over the article itself were aggravated by the incivility of another editor (anyone interested can go through the article talk page history). So far as this RFC goes, my concern is that the case made by PoD only sets out one side of the story, not a balanced viewpoint (not surprisingly, of course). But PBS will need to defend himself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion on punctuation and inline cites - this is interesting, because PBS says this:

So Tony1 you want to enforce one version on every article, and you want to choose the version you like best. One can make a good argument for using the Nature method, so if we are going to use one method then why not use that method? I think it is better if like the national verity of spelling that so long as articles are internally consistent editors should be able to use the style they prefer and consensus a local consensus should be found before that style is changed. I see no harm if advising that one method is preferred if the editors come here looking for guidance but I do not think we should be prescriptive. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• This is a point of view completely opposite to his later posts at HD&Q and GFN on Reference section formatting, where editors are apparently not allowed to use the style they prefer, and where the local consensus should be ignored. Just look at the last sentence above - did PBS write that, or was it an imposter? Parrot of Doom 12:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Could you provide a diff for the second view you note above? I assume that GFN refers to Guy Fawkes Night but am uncertain about what HD&Q is meant to represent. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, see this discussion. Parrot of Doom 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, you are not actually a prosecutor here. I think you should back off now. The RfC is about getting community input, not more and more of yours. We all have the picture that you have no time for PBS. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no intention of backing off. Anything I can find that helps shed light on what PBS has been doing here, I will post. Parrot of Doom 14:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then I think you have missed the point. This is not a courtroom drama. It is a community process with the intention of resolving a dispute. My point would be that, if you think PBS is inconsistent, we'd prefer that you were on collegiate terms with him and could talk it over to get his side of the story. If you think that trawling through all his contributions is going to get you onto better terms, you are simply wrong about that: it makes clear enough a selective approach to evidence. I think anyone with enough background here recognises that there is something about this dispute that is causing it to escalate; and anyone with experience of our dispute resolution knows that this is bad stuff for the mission as a whole. You have just stated, in effect, that you want to destroy PBS's reputation, rather than improve the encyclopedia. That crosses the line. Such animus is obviously an "escalating" factor. Just don't take this line. It puts you in the wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

He's providing more examples, Charles, which is what's needed. As people have explained, these problems go back for years, and are extensive. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is exactly as I have outlined on the RFC, I am providing more examples to back up my assertions. My point above isn't just that he's inconsistent, it's that he deliberately games the system, telling one group that editors should be allowed to make their own choices on style (because it suits his argument), while telling another group that they should not (because it suits his argument). PBS has done a fine job of destroying his reputation, without my aid. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you are not too consistent yourself: diff. You are, fortunately for us, a content expert; but disclaiming interest in certain other things and then appointing yourself to deal with them some weeks later isn't so good. You say you're not interested in policymaking, and then start producing material from policy talk pages to suit your argument ...? And as you say there, you don't care about him anyway. Look, I've been around here just about 8 years now and I surely know how fed up people get. Stating your case and then sitting down is the right approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You must be under the illusion that I'm doing this to score points, or "win" something. If you are, then allow me to correct you. I am doing this because I think PBS is a disruptive editor. He's keeping me from doing what I enjoy, which is writing half decent articles, and I have no doubt he's done the same to other people as well. I want him to stop his disruption and work constructively, and this is the only way I know to do it. Hopefully he'll take heed of the comments in this RFC, but if he doesn't then I'd like the community to use whatever powers it has to either force him to change his ways or leave.

By the way I am not an expert on anything. I'm knowledgeable on certain subjects and skilled in my career, but no more. Parrot of Doom 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but to the extent that "disruptive" is defined in policy (it isn't really - a duck test applies) you are not showing that. You started this thread with a diff that by no stretch of the imagination does that. It shows PBS in a somewhat messy discussion from two and a half years ago. Getting this matter into some sort of dispute resolution is a plus: overdue. You have started to stray into pot-kettle territory, which I don't like to see. Now let the RfC run its course as a straw poll, because that is what it is. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The RfC has only just opened; other evidence will emerge. PoD has recently written an FA—despite Philip's attempts to disrupt the process—is steering it through FAC, had to fend off a threatened block during that because of Philip, and has now had to find diffs for an RfC. This is too much to ask of people, and he shouldn't be criticized for it. There are lots of editors who would have left rather than put up with this.

Charles, you may have missed my request above. You wrote that Philip was a good historian. It would help to have some examples. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Siege of Basing House is last year; the toolserver suggests he starts a couple of articles a week. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just glancing through this very quickly, he appears to have copied some or most of it from a PD source, and has acknowledged that at the end:

• Philip, citing Gardiner 1889: "The feeling of the day about the slaughter among supporters of the Parliamentary cause is well brought out in a contemporary London newspaper. "The enemy, for aught I can learn ...".

• Gardiner 1889, p. 347, footnote 2: "The feeling of the day about the slaughter is well brought out in a contemporary newspaper: "The enemy ..." etc.

• Philip, citing Gardiner: "Waller's first attack upon Basing House was frustrated by a storm of wind and rain. His second attempt came to nothing from a cause far more ominous of disaster. His troops had long remained unpaid, and a mutinous spirit was easily aroused amongst them."

• Gardiner 1889, p. 294: "Waller's first attack upon Basing House was frustrated by a storm of wind and rain. His second attempt came to nothing from a cause far more ominous of disaster. His troops had long remained unpaid, and a mutinous spirit was easily aroused amongst them."

Philip has been reverting for the last few months any attempt to say in WP:V that in-text attribution is needed for close paraphrasing. When he does things like that, it's usually a sign that he is personally doing the thing he doesn't want the policy to advise against.

Do you have any examples of good history articles he has written himself? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, he has many new articles, and you can browse them from his contributions. You are not really being fair-minded about this one, you know; and even less so if you just turn it into a slanted commentary on a policy discussion; and even worse is the "it's usually a sign that" - you've simply made up your mind, pretty clearly. (There is nothing wrong with simply holding opinions; and as for reverting changes to policy pages, that is normal enough.) Just as PoD was being polemical in the diff I gave in saying PBS doesn't know how to improve articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Charles, you said he was a good historian; you must have had a reason for saying that. Just as people are looking for diffs to support criticism, if you post something positive, examples are helpful. I ask because, in all honesty, it would surprise me to find that, but it would be a pleasant surprise, and it ought to be taken into account if it's accurate. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You really need to retract what you implied about Siege of Basing House in haste. There are 46 inline refs to provide detailed attribution - did you not notice those? The work PBS did on William Everard (Digger) and Robert Everard, sorting out contemporary views on persons who have been identified in the past, impressed me as scholarly and serious. The very sad thing here is that, in terms of early modern history, there is not the slightest reason for PoD and PBS to be at odds. PBS generates numerous soundly-referenced and useful articles that fill gaps; like me, he is in the group of contributors who "turn redlinks blue" in the area of history. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What is it you'd like me to retract about Siege of Basing House, Charles? It's clear that it contains material (extensively, so far as I can tell) copied word from word from PD sources. That's allowed—not good practice in my view, but allowed—and he cited the sources in footnotes, and attributed the text at the end of the article. It's obvious from the writing that it's been copied, and a Google search confirms. I'll take a look at the other two articles you mentioned. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. You gratuitously mentioned WP:V and a policy issue. Since PBS is not not doing what you implied he was not doing, namely inline attribution of PD sources copied, that look like a coatrack to me. Those reading this who don't actually check out the article may take your implication as true. Which is actually a form of slur, isn't it? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not at all gratuitous. Philip copies PD texts into articles; or creates whole articles out of PD texts. He was very keen that the policy not require in-text attribution for quotations and close paraphrasing for that reason. He made this clear. Note: in-text attribution is not the same thing as an inline citation. He supplies the citations, but he doesn't make clear that he has copied the words. As I said, this is allowed, though in my view an unfortunate thing to do. I realize others disagree.

The only reason I mentioned it is that I asked you for examples of history articles he has written, because you said he wrote good history. So if we could stick to that, we wouldn't have to mention his PD work. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Philip didn't write Robert Everard, Charles, you did (he made a few edits to it here). Was it another article you had in mind? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say PBS wrote Robert Everard: I commended his work on that pair of articles. Because Christopher Hill, a major authority, identified William and Robert Everard, I had redirected William Everard (Digger) to Robert Everard. PBS made a fresh article of William Everard (Digger), which means that our coverage of the Diggers now is better in this respect than Hill's classic World Upside Down. And of course PBS also did some work on Robert Everard also, to update that. I was very pleased at this close attention to a scholarly point, and I imagine any student of the period would also be happy to have this done. It's the kind of thing that in the longer term will boost the reputation of the site. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't do much work on Robert Everard. I don't know what you mean about close attention to a scholarly point; here are his edits. It isn't fair to talk the edits up, because that involves others having to talk them down, so everyone ends up looking bad and it becomes a time sink. If we could stick to the facts, with links, that would help a lot.

I can see that he wrote William Everard (Digger). Thank you for that example. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the last article Philip created was Anne Hungerford, by once again copying large chunks from an out-of-date PD source, the 1891 version of the DNB. Doesn't look like good historical research to me, looks like plagiarism. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you and Philip are by far the two largest contributors to the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, where I also note that last July he was once again edit-warring with a couple of the other contributors. Definitely seems to be a strong pattern. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a long time ago, so I'd hesitate to bring it up. The only thing I recall is Philip resisted anything that he felt was criticism of the bombing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's surely relevant insofar as it demonstrates just how long this problem has been going on. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There are recent pages that I think might show the problem more clearly. I'll try to look for an example. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• @Charles Matthews. Charles, you have some interesting and thought-provoking input on this page, but considering the bulk of it, it's becoming a little strange to read comments from you like "The RfC is about getting community input, not more and more of yours" and "Stating your case and then sitting down is the right approach". There are several highly experienced editors taking part here, and I don't think you can intimidate them by referring to your 8 years on the project, even if it's the current page record. Haven't you made all your points yet? How about sitting down? @ PBS. On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear from PBS. I won't put it any more strongly than that, as certainly nobody's obliged to take part in any discussion on Wikipedia, but it seems a pity to me that you're ignoring this RfC, to the point of not even posting an "I'm too busy" or "I don't care what you say". (I ignored an RfC myself once, which was indeed intended as an expression of disrespect towards the way the originator had set it up. But this RfC... What's wrong with it?) Bishonen | talk 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

Bishonen - this thread here started with PoD's "I'm unclear if the rules allow for further evidence to be added on an RFC's talk page", and I wished to make the point that PoD, whom I respect as editor but who is not too experienced in other ways, is better off leaving advocacy to SV and MF as "seconds". Perish the thought that I would try to "intimidate" such folk! Perhaps you didn't see that in the thread above this, I have been trying to sum up views, with perhaps some success. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)