Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden

Cause of concern

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has displayed a pattern of behavior whereby he repeatedly tries to delete and/or marginalize legitimate cleanup tags on articles without actually fixing the problem to which the cleanup tag refers. This is just one part of a larger pattern of Colonel Warden's disruptive behavior with regard to the deletion process on Wikipedia in general, however this RFC/U is intended to focus only on the issue of inappropriate cleanup tag removal. Here is the timeline of events which led up to this RfC/U:

• Colonel Warden begins to outright delete legitimate cleanup tags without addressing the problem. In the interest of brevity, below is just a sample of diffs. Going back further in his contribution history would surely show more of the same:

• Oct 31 2010 — Removed prod without explanation, removed unreferenced tag without adding references.
• Oct 31 2010 — Removed morefootnotes and refimprove tag, made no improvements.
• Nov 6 2010 — Removed wikify, deadend, and catimprove tags, made no improvements later added a reference and an external link but made no improvements related to the tags which were removed.
• Nov 7 2010 — Removed prod without explanation, removed unreferenced tag without adding references.
• Nov 7 2010 — Removed plot, in-universe, and cleanup tags. Added a sentence and a citation.
• Nov 7 2010 — Removed cleanup and unreferenced tags, made no improvements to the article. He also started an edit war over the cleanup tags, which can be seen from this exchange:

• A user reverts CW's removal of the cleanup tags.
• The same user nominates the article for deletion.
• CW tries to remove the cleanup tag and replace it with a rescue tag.
• The same user restores the cleanup tag, leaves the rescue tag intact, and warns CW on his talk page.
• CW again tries to delete the unreferenced and cleanup tags.
• The same user restores both tags.
• An admin is forced to protect the article because of the edit war.

• Nov 8 2010 — Removed unreferenced, orphan, and advert tags; added rescue tag. Didn't add any referencesAdded one reference, didn't add any incoming links.
• ***Page has since been deleted, can an admin see this diff?***

  Oct 31 2010 — For admins: CW removed PROD and multiple issues tags with edit summary "-tags"

• On November 9, I noticed the issue with one article, and then checking through CW's contributions I realized there was a pattern of disruption. Other users had noticed this as well and posted on his talk page:

• Nov 9 2010 — I posted a warning on his talk page at 22:21 UTC.

• About an hour later (23:19 UTC), Colonel Warden ignores the warnings on his talk page and continues his behavior without discussion:

• November 9 2010 — Removes prod without explanation, removes orphan tag without adding any incoming links. This article continues to this day to have zero incoming links from the article mainspace.

• About an hour after that, I start an ANI thread about Colonel Warden's behavior. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive648#Inappropriate cleanup tag removal. The overwhelming consensus that emerges from that thread is that Colonel Warden's behavior is disruptive and must stop immediately. Some editors call for an immediate block. About 6 hours later, the discussion is closed with the resolution that "Colonel Warden should not remove tags from articles unless the issues have been addressed or he can demonstrate that the tags are no longer needed."
• Four days later, Colonel Warden starts removing cleanup tags again:

• November 14 2010 — Removes refimprove and expert tags, as well as seven "citation needed" tags. Added two sentences and a reference to support them.

• I start a thread on the talk page of an admin who was involved in the last round at ANI. See User talk:Black Kite/Archive 35#Colonel Warden is at it again. At least 3 admins show clear disapproval. But, CW is given one last chance:

• Nov 15 2010 — Colonel Warden is given a level 3 warning on his talk page by an admin with whom he is very familiar.

• Six days later, Colonel Warden tries again. This time, instead of deleting the cleanup tags, he moves them to the very bottom of a long article:

• Nov 21 2010 — Moves orphan, refimprove, onesource, and inline tags to the bottom of the article. Adds a rescue tag to the top of the article. (admin-only diff - page was subsequently deleted)

• The next day, I start a thread on the talk page of the admin who previously gave him a level 3 warning. See User talk:Jclemens#Colonel Warden, yet again. After some discussion, Colonel Warden is indefinitely blocked. The blocking admin starts this ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Colonel Warden blocked. The block is largely endorsed by the majority of admins and users who comment in this thread. The minority of opposition eventually leads to the unblocking of Colonel Warden, with the intention of discussing the situation at this RFC/U rather than continuing the discussion at ANI.
• Throughout the day or so that Colonel Warden was blocked, he never acknowledged that his behavior was disruptive or that his behavior with respect to cleanup tags was wrong. In fact, the comments he made on his talk page regarding the block seemed to indicate that he specifically believes he hasn't done anything wrong. The community is left to presume that he has no intention to stop.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article message boxes) (also codified at WP:TC)
2. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
3. Wikipedia:Edit warring
4. Wikipedia:Gaming the system
5. Wikipedia:BATTLE

Desired outcome

Colonel Warden will voluntarily agree to not delete, move, or modify cleanup templates that appear on any articles. He is welcome to add cleanup tags or {{rescue}} tags to articles. If he believes a tag should be removed, he is welcome to ask another user to remove the tag for him.

Additionally, if Colonel Warden disagrees with the established consensus and guidelines regarding use of cleanup tags, he is welcome to start consensus-building discussions in an attempt to change the guidelines.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

The timeline above (under Cause of Concern) shows many examples of warnings that were given to Colonel Warden both on his talk page and at the ANI complaint about his behavior.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

The timeline above (under Cause of Concern) shows several examples of Colonel Warden continuing his disruptive behavior after having been warned multiple times by multiple editors.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (dispute: edit [prev. cited by SW] summary explicitly acknowledging removal of tags; attempted resolution: warning [only level 2 as previous warning had already been removed and I wasn't aware of it]; failure: Colonel Warden denies removal of tags was intentional, makes no apology & attempts to place the blame on myself.)
   • In response to this implicit question, I would offer the following further recent examples (having attempted to weed out duplicates & ambiguous cases): Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
     • Your first example looked unambiguously legit to me. Editors are still allowed to remove unreferenced tags if they add a reference. ϢereSpielChequers 12:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
       • Stricken. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. As described above, in the relevant ANI threads, and on my talk page archives. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

1. Certainly; and there's more, over years. I'll likely be adding an outside view. Jack Merridew 01:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Yup. I have found CW's behaviour to be very dubious, to say the least, over a fair period of time. Depending on how the scope of this RfC develops, I might be adding an outside view myself. Reyk _YO! 01:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Multiple issues with this user have come up, and he hasn't acknowledged them as problems. AniMate 01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Like many WP:ARS members, the Col. has a marked tendency to exhibit a battlefield mentality and focus more on "rescuing" articles by any means necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Yep. That said, I don't think it's the ARS itself that is to blame for this... it just seems to be a magnet for people that will do anything to thwart consensus when it is clearly time for an article to be deleted. (c.f. A Nobody). Some ARS members do great work and deserve our accolades. ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. with two caveats (1) agree with Lar's note about the ARS; and (2) this RFC needs to stay focused on the particular causes of concern raised above. More generalised complaints about CW's editing are only likely to disrupt, rather than help, this RFC reach a productive outcome.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
7. without caveat - as CW is not a person with just a single fault :) Noting moreover that I am not a "deletionist" Collect (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Since some users are specifically saying the first 6 diffs are fine: no, they're not (except the 5th, probably). Removing unreferenced tags from unreferenced articles is a particularly obvious Thing Not To Do. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Especially agree with Rd232 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. The proposed resolution refers to all cleanup tags. Has it been established that Colonel Warden exhibits a personal preference for removing cleanup tags regardless of the nature of the tag, or just those which would imply an ultimate deletion of article content? The likes of {{tooshort}} or {{expand}} do not seem to lie within the problem area. Clarification here would help to ensure that Colonel Warden is not prevented from engaging in legitimate cleanup work, nor burdened with additional red tape thereof; additionally, it would help ensure that any sanctions were not weakened or questioned through good-faith actions by Colonel Warden that happened to contradict the terms of the resolution. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A. CW has removed tags like deadend and wikify, which would not ultimately cause the article to be deletable, but it seems to me that he has mostly concentrated on things like unreferenced which are ultimately reasons to delete. Reyk _YO! 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Q.What are the actual policies about removing tags? The only place I am aware of where it is actually not permitted to remove an unreferenced tag without adding a reference is for a BLP PROD. (I'm not saying removing them elsewhere is good practice--there are many things that are good practice but not everyone does them, like following WP:BEFORE.) And what is the relative frequency in which he removes such tags without adding references to those where he does add references? DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A. An exhaustive examination of Warden's involvement in de-tagging and so forth and the relevant policy can be found in the following discussion from last month, which you participated in. Here .Bali ultimate (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. Let me repeat the first half of DGG's question, in greater detail, in the hope of getting a direct answer: Where is the policy that says Colonel Warden must not remove prod tags without an explanation? The policy I'm looking at says "If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the {{proposed deletion}} tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed." Is the contention here that Colonel Warden is not a sufficiently "any person" to be permitted to do what any other editor is permitted to do, or is the problem that the complainants didn't read the policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A. No one disputes that any editor is allowed to remove prod tags for any reason, and they are not required to provide a reason or justification, although doing so (at the very least, in an edit summary) is highly encouraged. The diffs which reference prod tags above imply that CW abuses that loophole to render the entire prod process to be essentially useless. However, to be absolutely clear and provide you with a direct answer: the main complain in this RfC does not revolve around prod tags; the cleanup tags are the primary issue under discussion here. The descriptions of the diffs above which say "removed prod without explanation" are mostly there to describe the edit in its entirety, not to point out some kind of a de-prodding policy violation. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. Following the previous answer, it makes sense to ask the same question about cleanup tags. Is there an explicit policy requiring users to explain the removal of cleanup tags? I think there definitely a community consensus that an editor who makes it one of their main activities to remove cleanup tags should get into the habit of offering at least some explanation for each removal, if only to demonstrate good faith and avoid the appearance of disruption. But let's be very clear; is there a basis in written policy for objecting to CW's conduct in removing cleanup tags? Thparkth (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A. First, may I state that the issue is not so much "explain[ing] the removal of cleanup tags" as removing tags for which the problem has not been rectified. In such cases, where there is a consensus that the tag should exist, and the tag has been legitimately applied, it can be considered to be WP:Disruptive editing to remove the tag without fixing the problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. Given what WP:CONSENSUS says, if any editor disputes the placement of a tag on an article, do you actually have a consensus in favor of placing that tag on that article? Or do you have no consensus at all about which, if any, tags should be placed in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A. You seem to be either fundamentally misunderstanding the point of this RfC or you are intentionally trying to rationalize it in a wikilawyer style. I don't want to speak for Colonel Warden, but I don't think his cleanup tag removals were prompted by a "dispute" that the tags were inappropriate. After all, it would be tough to argue that an {{unreferenced}} tag doesn't belong on an article with zero references (although I can't fault you for trying to argue that exact point on the RfC talk page). The behavior exhibited in the diffs provided above show a clear pattern of removing all of the cleanup tags on the articles in question, without addressing the issues to which the cleanup tags refer. It's not that CW went through and saw that one of the three cleanup tags on the article had been addressed, and removed that particular one because he "disputed" it. He clearly has an opinion (verified from his comments on various other pages) that cleanup tags are unsightly and he would personally prefer that they all went away. He was acting on this opinion, unilaterally removing cleanup tags in an attempt to conceal the issues with these articles, presumably in the hopes that no one would find them and nominate them for deletion. There was no "dispute" (indeed, there was no communication or explanation given by CW for any of the removals), therefore consensus doesn't even enter into it. SnottyWong ^spout 19:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. As a general principle, is there any reason that the removal (or addition) of cleanup tags should not be seen as part of the normal BRD cycle? Thparkth (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A.1 I think there are many activities that can " be seen as part of the normal BRD cycle" when performed appropriately, or in isolation, but become disruptive when performed in a repeated and inappropriate manner. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• On further reflection, it cannot "be seen as part of the normal BRD cycle" because it fails WP:BOLD as not being an attempt to "fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc" -- it is in fact an attempt to hide a problem. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

A.2 WP:BRD is an essay and not a policy or a guideline. It never gives anyone the "right" to engage in disruptive reverting of positive or necessary changes to any article. Positive or necessary changes might range from adding cleanup tags like {{unreferenced}} when appropriate, to removing material that violates W:BLP. Also keep in mind that the BRD essay is only really describing a situation in which the revert happens immediately. Every piece of text in an entry was added to it at some point in time. One cannot claim one is reverting a bold change, per BRD, if that so called change happened months, or years prior.Griswaldo (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. There are editors out there—often with little or no article content contributions even after thousands of edits—who do little else but go around adding tags. Even when other editors who have shown longer interest and commitment to an article remove these tags, these tag adders persist in tagging the articles with unref tags or if reference is given, a more footnotes tag, or some other cleanup tag. Since the majority of articles are not of FA caliber, such an editor could reasonably argue one tag or another could be applied. Is such behavior acceptable? Lambanog (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A. Where a tag is appropriate, I see no problem with it being added, irrespective of who does the adding. (Wikipedia is meant to be about content, not personalities.) If a tag has been appropriately added, then it should not be removed without correcting the problem -- again, irrespective of who does the removing. This allows the Wikipedia community to assess the scale of problems, and work out means of rectifying them (like the unreferenced BLP cleanup drive -- which simply couldn't be attempted without {{unreferencedBLP}} tags on affected articles). A logical consequence of (i) WP:IMPERFECT & (ii) a desire to improve the imperfections, is a desire to document the imperfections so they can be rectified. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A2. (edit conflict) If an article truly suffers from a major problem (i.e. no references, no footnotes, no wikilinks, etc.) then it should be tagged so that it can be tracked and categorized for those editors who do little else but go around adding references, footnotes, wikilinks, etc. Such behavior is not only acceptable, it is welcomed. It is a major component of new page patrolling. It takes all kinds of people to build and sustain a project like this, and we shouldn't look down upon those who find their niche in wikignomish activities, or those who want to contribute but are not strong article writers. SnottyWong ^yak 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. Spoiler tags are currently considered inappropriate. One of the main arguments used against their use is that the general disclaimer should be sufficient. Why should that not also be the case for unref tags? Further, given that such tags are not mandatory for unreferenced articles and if the community wished to make them mandatory it could easily move to do so, why should any weight or value whatsoever be given to keeping unref tags or criticism given to their removal especially if they have been unaddressed for years? Lambanog (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A. Are you suggesting that Wikipedia post a general disclaimer in lieu of cleanup tags? Something akin to "Disclaimer: Some Wikipedia articles may not have any references, and therefore may not be verifiable. These articles may actually contain completely false information. Read them at your own risk." That seems absurd to me and I don't see how that would be helpful in the least. Spoiler tags are solely intended to communicate something to the reader, whereas cleanup tags are intended to both categorize articles based on their deficiencies and communicate something to the reader. There is a clear consensus that spoiler tags are not appropriate, and there is a clear consensus that cleanup tags are appropriate. Making comparisons between the two does not seem relevant. The purpose of cleanup tags is to point out major problems with an article which need to be fixed, and to categorize these articles to attract editors to them. There would be no value for a Category:Articles with spoilers but there is much value in Category:Articles lacking sources and Category:Orphaned articles. No one is saying that cleanup tags are "mandatory", however if they are legitimately applied to an article, removing them before the problem has been addressed is seen by many as vandalism. SnottyWong ^yak 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Q. Are any of the complainants here making a claim that they were more involved with and had a longer history with the articles mentioned in the complaint than CW? Lambanog (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A.1 I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm reasonably sure that I've never edited any of the articles mentioned in the complaint before, except to revert CW's removal of the cleanup tags. I'm unsure what relevance this has to the discussion. SnottyWong ^yak 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A.2 My first edit to Natural theology was in June 2008, and I have made a number of edits since. Colonel Warden's removal of the tags from that article (in mid November) is the sole edit he has made to it. Like SW, I am unsure why you are asking this question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to concerns

When this RfC was in draft, I made a response at Response by Colonel Warden. It seemed to me then that we were still making progress. I haven't had much time to follow up ideas such as use of the {{multiple issues}} template as I'm quite busy with non-Wiki activities currently. But when doing prod patrol, I've started using templates on the deprodded article's talk page to make it clear what's happening and get discussion started.

For an example of this, please see the case of Spark (fire) which has been cited in evidence against me. This is a recent example of my behaviour and it may be seen that, after removing the prod, I edited the article's talk page to add the templates {{notice}}, {{find}}, {{oldPRODfull}} and {{deprod-disagree}}. The editor who had placed the prod then responded in an amicable way. I tweaked my talk page update at his suggestion and all was well. Is this not a model of good interaction? I am open to suggestions as to how it may be improved further but my general point is that you're pushing on an open door here.

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q. Again, the main thrust of this RfC has very little to do with prod tags. What is your response to the accusations made regarding improper use of cleanup tags (i.e. removing {{unreferenced}} tags on articles with zero references), and what is your view of the "Desired Outcome" section? SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A.

Q. Colonel Warden: I note that the only dif that you have addressed to date was that for Spark (fire), and that this dif happens to be the only dif that has been stricken (and that it had been stricken at the time of your response). So my question is: when do you intend to respond to the non-stricken portion of this dispute?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 16:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A.

Q. Colonel Warden: why are more interested in discussing the works of Samuel Johnson on this RfD than discussing the complaints against you (a topic you have repeatedly deflected)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

A.

Q. Colonel Warden: why have you added citations for information, when you had no reasonable certainty that the cited source contained that information (Countdown to Destruction in WT:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden#Kanguole's list)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A.

Q. Colonel Warden: why did you overturn WP:Articles for deletion/Saint Francis of Assisi school and restore Saint Francis of Assisi school, when (i) your source was a WP:SPS, (ii) you apparently had never sighted the source, nor even a excerpt of it, (iii) when the material you were purporting it to support was only a fraction of the material you restored & (iv) without giving an accurate edit summary explaining what you were doing? (Again per WT:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden#Kanguole's list.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A.

Outside view by Dream Focus

• The first one he removed the reference tag which had been there for two years, no one paying any attention to it, so it rather pointless. Also, why would you need a reference for that? It mentions the songbook its in, linking to that article, and surely you can confirm the information presented in the one sentence of that article through that. The second one you link to has him removing useless tags about needing additional footnotes and references when in fact that article has plenty already in it. The tags were placed the year before, and perhaps someone forgot to remove them once they had added these things. They serve no purpose at all. I didn't bother looking through the rest, since after you make a complaint against something like that, I assume you don't really have a case at all. Since you do complain about the Article Rescue Squadron quite often, I have to wonder if his active role in it is at least in part your motivation for doing this.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Dream Focus 01:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. If the first few examples given above are among the most egregious edits CW has made then I really see no basis for a complaint. They look good faith and can arguably be said to have improved the article by removing unsightly ineffective banners. If the articles are truly poor, an AfD can resolve the issue. It is ludicrous that an editor that goes around saving and cleaning up articles is the object of an RfC when there are vandals with no notable contribution doing the opposite who get no attention. Lambanog (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Endorse Dream Focus and Lambanog. This rfc was labored over in draft form for weeks and seems to be much ado about (almost) nothing. The first example cited removed a prod and unreferenced tag with an edit summary of "-tags" , then the article was sent to AfD and was speedy kept/nomination withdrawn. Its a good thing he questions tags, tag creep without improvement or demonstrated usefulness is a problem.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. The minor events from last month seem to have stopped. This has become a non-issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I examined the first six actions listed as problematic and do not find the first five particularly problematic. As to the sixth, removal was not ideal but hardly a case for an RfC on user conduct asking for CW to not be allowed to remove tags. On a side note I am no fan of the Article Rescue activities and tend more to the deletionist side. Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. I do not believe that the behaviour complained of here warrants an RFC/U. I can't help but feel that CW's main fault is effective long-term good-faith disagreement with some of those complaining. Thparkth (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
7. agree that the issue raised does not warrant drastic action. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Almost all of the tags he has removed are matters of opinion, such as whether an article is sufficiently wikified, or whether there are sufficient references. In each case, the applicable policy is BRD, and one can remove the tag if one thinks it unwarranted. Even for unreferenced, there can be reasonable disagreements about the extent to which the links or information in the article constitute references . I've seen a great many articles labelled as unreferenced whee there are actually such references, but not a formal reference section. The proper use of orphan is rather controversial, and we really need a general discussion about it before we can censure people for removing it. I further agree with MQS that there were some problems last month, but picking out the 2 or 3 debatable ones this month is not a reasonable basis for saying there is continuing misbehavior. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
9. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
10. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Have to agree, though theres probably genuinely felt concerns motivating the RFC. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Griswaldo

Disruptive and pointy

I have only run into Colonel Warden once, during a recent series of AfDs and the AN/I discussion brought on by another editor's (User:Epeefleche) canvassing activities during these AfDs. In opposing a proposed topic ban of Epeefleche, Colonel Warden compared those who wanted to delete the entries in question to Nazis. It is worth noting here that the AfDs were all "List of Jewish ..." entries, so analogies to the Holocaust are particularly offensive in that context. For doing this Warden was appropriately blocked. Apparently the block caused all kinds of drama on its own but I did not follow that. The result of the AN/I discussion about Epeefleche also resulted in a block of that editor, which lasted until Epeefleche met the unblocking conditions of the blocking admin. It is important to note that the community was pretty clear that Epeefleche was in the wrong, and therefore supported the block and the unblocking conditions (see AN/I thread linked above). When Epeefleche was finally unblocked, Colonel Warden showed up on his talk page to congratulate Epeefleche for his disruptive behavior by awarding him a barnstar.

Like I said at the outset my experience with this editor is very limited, but from what I have seen his behavior is quite disruptive, and exceedingly pointy. I also get the picture that his motivations, when he is behaving in this way, are all to do with some fanatical urge to keep every and all entries currently on Wikipedia. I can't see how that kind of unfettered article keep fanaticism which crosses the line into disruption is an asset to the project. I hope that either he changes his behavior or some other remedy can be found.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Griswaldo (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. While I'm not sure we should be expanding the scope of this RfC to CW's non-tag-related misbehaviour you are right in what you say so I endorse it. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Unlike Reyk, I think we should put it all out there, because the totality of his behavior is problematic. I'm Jewish, though not very observant, and the thing that really pissed me off about this wasn't that he said other editors are acting like Nazis. It wasn't an attempt at humor like the Soup Nazi, he said their behavior was in line with the Nacht und Nebel action, an order by Hitler that resulted in political dissidents being rounded up and murdered or sent to concentration camps. That comparison is beyond anything acceptable. AniMate 07:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I saw this one. Appalling. Much will be put out because there is much of concern. Editors who skate over the line too often but duck back when called build up a huge empoundment of issues that eventually come roaring down on them when the community has had enough. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. fully endorse, as an experienced editor this is some of the worst disruption I have ever seen with complete disregard for WP community. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
7. CW can certainly be a tad disruptive, aside from the tagging issues. Let us hope that he will learn from this RfC, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Congratulating someone who had just been condemned by the community for his actions – that's not something one would do if his goal was an amicable collaborative environment. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
11. While not related to the cleanup tags, this example clearly shows that CW has a hard time controlling himself when dealing with deletion-related events in general. SnottyWong ^babble 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Agree that the whole picture regarding deletion should be taken into account, and this is not a pretty picture. AD 14:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
13.  pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Only with respect to the first paragraph, pretty much per AniMate, except that I am not Jewish. T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
15. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by WereSpielChequers

Editors are reminded that when they edit here their contributions maybe ruthlessly edited by others, and that this includes the removal or repositioning of tags that others believe incorrect or misplaced.

Many Wikipedia articles have cleanup tags for various reasons, most tags were valid when they were first applied, many are still valid now. Removing incorrect or no longer valid tags is a perfectly legitimate way to improve the Pedia.

Colonel Warden is charged with two counts of removing a prod without explanation. Current policy on prods is that editors are encouraged to give an explanation when they decline a prod. So Editors are free to encourage Colonel Warden to provide a rationale when declining prods, but should stop short of filing RFCs or accusing him of breaching policy. If editors wish to tighten policy from "encouraged to" to "must" give a rationale when declining a prod, then they should make a case for changing the policy, not file an RFC on someone who declines prods without giving an explanation.

Removing {{Deadend}} from a stub which was almost but not quite a Deadend is also an unworthy subject of an RFC. Editors who consider that articles are still deadends even when they have one or two links may wish instead to discuss the issue at Template_talk:Dead_end#How many links_are_needed to_remove this_template?

Removing an {{InUniverse}} tag from an article whose first line includes the phrase "is the name of several fictional characters from the various Transformers universes" Seems a legitimate editorial decision to me. It is important that we identify In-Universe articles and amend them to make it clear that the subject is fictional, but such tags cease to have value if they are applied indiscriminately to all articles on fictional subjects. If editors consider that the phrase "is the name of several fictional characters from the various Transformers universes. He is often depicted as" is insufficient to make it clear that the subject of the article is fictional then they are welcome to explain why, but it is thin grounds for filing an RFC on an editor who considers that an adequate sentence to justify removal of an InUniverse tag.

{{Cleanup}} tags are a useful way to indicate that an article needs cleanup. This is cited as an example of Colonel warden removing a Cleanup tag without good reason. However comparing Amish furniture to other articles that are tagged as needing cleanup I'm not sure why that tag is there either, and so have started a thread at Talk:Amish furniture#Cleanup. Perhaps there is a good reason for the tag, but the right place to discuss that is on the talkpage of an article, not in an RFC on an editor who has ruthlessly edited the article by removing a tag that has unclear purpose and little if any value.

Whether cleanup tags belong at the top of an article or at the end is in part an aesthetic issue, as long as they are in the article somewhere the article will appear in the appropriate cleanup category. Editors who have strong opinions as to whether a tag should be positioned at the top or the bottom of the article are reminded of the editwarring policies. Clearly having such tags at the top of the article makes them more visible to our readers, and therefore there is an argument for doing so with tags such as {{unreferenced}} that warn readers that we consider this article below our normal standards. There is also an argument that tags which new editors are most easily tempted to handle such as referencing and expand should be at the top. But neither argument applies to orphan templates. Currently the template documentation implicitly encourages them to be placed at the top by stating that is the easiet way to add them. Editors who care whether Orphan tags should be at the top or the bottom of an article are recommended to discuss the matter at Template_talk:Orphan#Top_or_Bottom?, not in an RFC on one editor who clearly prefers that they be at the end.

Once we filter out the inappropriate/incorrect parts of this RFC there are still issues that have been raised where Colonel Warden has made mistakes, and therefore one should reasonably assume he or she is human. The editors who raised this are welcome to strike the issues where Colonel warden is not in breach of policy, and may choose to refocus the RFC on the remaining items, but I would suggest it would be more appropriate for them to withdraw their RFC and seek to resolve their differences in other ways.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Many of the complaints listed here relate to editing behaviour which is well within policy, and which clearly represents a good-faith intention to improve the utility of articles. The requestor would be well-advised to strike out those items which are not unambiguously in breach of policy and within the bounds of good practice. Thparkth (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Having had a look at the examples of alleged inappropriate removal of maintenance tags (which is all this is about), I concur with WereSpielChequers. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Clearly Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes, entirely, and particularly about striking the nonsensical non-violations of non-policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Accurate analysis. There are plenty of issues to sort out, but this is probably the least important. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
9. BOZ (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
10. --Cyclopia^talk 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
11. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Very well stated. It's a shame many commentators have strayed into generalised attacks on the Colonel, we might have found some common ground if others had stayed on topic as per this view. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
13. I agree, he's largely staying inside of policy/guidelines and where he doesn't he seems to listen and fix the behavior. That said, I do get the sense of a BATTLEGROUND issue, but it can be hard not to have such an outlook when others around you are battling everywhere. Hobit (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
14. And as CW has ceased, and is engaging in discussion, this RFC can be closed as having made whatever impact it was supposed to. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
15. More or less concur with Hobit here, and the outside view I entered below may well be an example of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality he talks about. Viewed in isolation, most of the tagging issues are minor issues, and many of the actions are indeed a breach of etiquette rather than a breach of policy (e.g. challenging a PROD without giving a reason). With that said, some of the diffs in this view display worrisome edits, the example given as "removing a Cleanup tag without good reason" also removed an {{unreferenced}} tag from a clearly unreferenced article without any reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 04:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Edward321 (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Concur --Mike Cline (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
19. But only the following limited sense: without necessarily endorsing every specific point made (for example, I disagree that moving maintenance tags to the bottom is acceptable), I agree that some of the edits are not technical violations of policies or guidelines. However, they are breaches of good editing practice. Also per Sjakkalle. T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
20. --Oakshade (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Sjakkalle

I have somewhat mixed feelings about Colonel Warden. On the one hand, he does often do a good job in trying to improve articles in a way which will save them from deletion. On the other hand he has a tendency to personalize issues. There is one incident which left a rather bad taste in my mouth, and which may have been a violation of WP:POINT.

On October 29 this year, I entered a "delete" vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London, an article which Colonel was trying to save, and there was some discussion about the points I made in that AFD. One hour later, Colonel Warden had nominated one of my articles, Stonewall Attack for deletion (AFD link), with a nomination statement which, in Wikipedia jargon, is referred to as WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Not only that, but when the (unanimous) keep votes started coming in, Colonel Warden began rebutting each of them in turn, in a manner which I usually see among overly excited deletionists who are gung-ho on getting something deleted. It surprises me that an editor who spends so much effort in trying to save articles on city streets would fight so hard to delete a topic which has at least two or three books written about it.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Agree with the last sentence, for such an ardent inclusionist, his behavior in the linked AfD is surprising. PhilKnight (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Despite being a dedicated inclusionist, he has made some bizarre nominations of articles in the past. His tendancy to "rebut" reasonable comments is irritating, but hardly groundbreaking, and as you mention something that a lot of people do. AD 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. That is a prime example of pointiness IMO, trying to get a article deleted out of spite rather than a sincere concern that it does not meet article guidelines. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Yeah this is pretty atrocious behavior, and a good example of seems to be par for the course with this editor. Griswaldo (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Quite pointy indeed. AniMate 19:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Deplorable. He did a similar thing to me back in February as well. Reyk _YO! 22:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. As Beeblebrox said on the talk page; it's all about WP:BATTLE to Colonel Warden. Days after I was unbanned (which CW was not supportive of;), I created Puputan... and hours later he proposed an inappropriate merge. Jack Merridew 06:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
9. First three sentences are a perfect summary of the issues. The specific incident looks rather pointy to me. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
10. I was going to refrain from endorsing concerns that were outside the original scope. But this is shocking stuff, combined with Reyk's example below.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
11. I was dismayed to read the Stonewall Attack AFD page. - Pointillist (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
12. This does look somewhat pointy. The nomination might have been motivated by legitimate concerns, although the repeated 'rebuttals' suggest a mission. pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
13. He does seem to make some odd nominations and then emulate a hard-core deletionist, but this looks vindictive. Kanguole 17:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Some of the other conduct isn't that bad. But we ought to condemn this, and let Colonel continue any otherwise good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
15. That AfD is indeed quite bizarre. Perhaps the timing could be a coincidence, but I have doubts. T. Canens (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
16. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
17. I have seen similar behaviour from Colonel Warden before. Colonel Warden is normally one of the most ardent and active inclusionists in English Wikipedia, but very occasionally makes wild and concerted attempts to have articles deleted without any evident good reason. I have not checked how many of these cases involve editors who have recently disagreed with Colonel Warden on other issues, but I have certainly noticed that it is so in some cases. Other aspects of CW's behaviour from time to time also seem to suggest a battleground approach. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Bali ultimate

Don't get bogged down in the minutiae tar baby, as will probably be a tactic here. There will be case by case dissections of tags removed, and arguments how, in each instance, if you stretch assume good faith to near breaking you can see a way in which it was an honest mistake. And if the many instances of redirects, renames and merges performed in the middle of afds, uses of terrible sources from commercial sales sites, the seeming misunderstanding of written material etc... are brought up, the tactic will be to once more get bogged down in minutiae, rather than focusing on the big picture.

This narrow issue is part of a much larger, long-standing pattern. The big picture is this: Col. Warden has an extreme ideology that appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder. In his quest to save articles, he is willing to confound any process, run roughshod over any consensus, do anything to conceal the fact that problematic articles exist (the reason he was mucking about with the tags that brought this all up). His behavior has three results: One, he creates Okip/A Nobody levels of battleground and unpleasantness for other editors. Two, his interventions frequently lead to the construction/retention of not just bad articles, but misleading articles. Three, the core-level of contempt he demonstrates for those who disagree with him (Nazi name-calling bad, but logic-free game-playing is in my world far worse) lowers the quality of argument and drives competent editors away. Dealing with the "tag" issue in isolation will just shift the disruption to other, related areas.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Reyk _YO! 13:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Bali ultimate is right, the tag-deletion is not the totality of the problem with CW – it was simply the most concrete, and easily describable part of it. As such it may act as the 'loose thread' that allows us to unwind a larger pattern of disruption.Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Nothing wrong with being an inclusionist, or a deletionist for that matter, but neither ideology is an excuse for disruptive conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
5. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Head of nail, meet hammer. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
7. The tagging issue is one of the more visible symptoms of a wider problem. Rd232 ^talk 14:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Well said. The same goes for many inclusionists, who seem misunderstand as editors, our role inevitably involves editing of material, which can be wholesale removal. The analogy of deleting articles being like murder may sound extreme to those unfamiliar, but it's a good reflection of reality. AD 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Indeed, the problem runs deep and the common denominator with CW's problems is deletion. This RfC was intentionally limited to the issue of cleanup tags in the hopes that those who perennially seek to warp the issue by focussing on minutiae would have little to grab on to. It seems that hasn't stopped them from trying (see Dream Focus' incomprehensible outside view above, as well as WereSpielChequers' outside view, where he/she focusses on the two or three least egregious examples of CW's behavior, and conveniently omits any mention of the most egregious). The fact that they have little to grab on to only highlights the abhorrent (and predictable) tactics by a vocal minority who inexplicably seek to encourage and applaud Colonel Warden for the very behavior for which he was blocked. The politics of this place will never fail to amaze me. SnottyWong ^communicate 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
10. From my limited experience this seems accurate. He really seems to have an "ends justify the means" approach to deletion/retention of articles and that is completely unhelpful.Griswaldo (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Per SnottyWong. There are many more problems with CW's behavior than this tagging stuff, but it seems one cannot win, if they had all been brought to the table, then the tactic would be to divide and conquer. As Bali says, the problem is CW and his extreme keep at any cost (unless it's a revenge deletion like Sjak talks of) ideaology. The good ARS members ought to purge their ranks of disruptive members like CW. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Exactly so. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Well stated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Here here. I've had this page on my watchlist since like 2008, in anticipation of a discussion being started on his problematic behavior. In the intervening years, things don't seem have improved. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Thank You Bali. I was considering writing my own view but you have summed it up so well I don't think that will be needed anymore. The individual incidents unto themselves are not the problem, it's the pattern. The Colonel can be pleasant enough when he wants to be, but sometimes he seems to believe he is the only one who understands Wikipedia and his interpretation of how things ought to be is the only valid one. How we get that behavior to change is the (much more difficult) problem this RFC should be addressing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Very well said. AniMate 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
17. This hits the nail right on the head. Them From Space 20:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Deor (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Agreed. I remember having similar issues with him on several AfDs I initiated (or participated in) in the past, where rather than address the issue, he would confound the discussion. I would have a hard time finding all of them, but this is one instance of the behavior mentioned. To summarize: being unable to argue policy items, CW turned to "format breakage" as a technical fault to "invalidate the AfD." Failing that, he then claimed that a cut/paste "violated the GFDL", and several users commented on the disruptive behavior he exhibited at that time. Around this same time period, I seem to recall he popped up in a few AfDs I was in, and voted keep, seemingly out of no interest except spite, though it does appear that he votes keep 99.9% of the time. I believe the other .1% is "speedy keep." MSJapan (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
20. well said. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
21. Bingo!  We have a winner. Very nice summary of the big picture. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 06:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
22. Yup, with a note that the ideology is not necessarily a problem, but the behaviour that accompanies it. My main concern is that the attempts to keep articles at any costs leads to misleading articles. (Notwithstanding that he does do some good work in finding sources for some articles). Quantpole (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
23. Yes. Colonel Warden belongs to a group of editors that resort to disrupting the deletion processes when he cannot find legitimate means to have an article kept.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

    Clarifying: that "group" doesn't include all or even most of the ARS, it's a smaller handful that included A Nobody, Ikip, Pixelface, and has a few members that are still active.—Kww(talk) 13:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

24. Unfortunately, this describes too well my interactions with CW. Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
25.  pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
26. This is a fair assessment based on the evidence. But I would call for a very small remedy or even just a warning. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
27. Straight to the point. T. Canens (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
28. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
29. Genuinely improving articles so that they meet quality thresholds is commendable, but repeatedly turning AFDs into a WP:BATTLEGROUND is not the way to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
30. My experiences mirror what Bali ultimate has said, Colonel Warden is very disruptive to Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
31. Bali ultimate has come up with an excellent summary of the essential issues here. The editors who have attempted to defend Colonel Warden by picking on the minutiae are doing Wikipedia a disservice. To argue that in individual cases Colonel Warden's actions may be defensible is either a good faith misunderstanding of the point or else a bad faith attempt to deflect argument away from the essential points. (No useful purpose would be served by trying in individual cases which of those two applies.) The problem is the overall pattern of Colonel Warden's behaviour, and the true nature of that problem can be seen only by looking at the overall pattern, not by focussing on details, especially not by focussing only on the details of those instances where CW's activities are at their least questionable. Bali ultimate has rightly stated that Colonel Warden "appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder". The problem is not just that CW is at one extreme end of the deletionist/inclusionist spectrum. It is that he is at that extreme end of the spectrum and seems to think that in defending that position anything at all is acceptable, the ends justifying the means. He also seems to think that tagging an article to indicate that there is a need for improvement is some sort of attack on it, a sort of half-way house towards deleting it. Once Colonel Warden sees that an article is, as he seems to view it, under attack from an enemy, he tends to think that anything at all in retaliation is legitimate, as though he were in an all-out war. This includes, among other things, (1) removing any tags that he sees as part of the attack, whether or not there is justification for those tags, (2) defending articles against deletion by misrepresenting facts, (3) defending articles against deletion by procedural quibbles and wikilawyering, (4) personal attacks on editors he perceives as "the enemy" (calling them "nazis" is one example), (5) revenge attacks on editing of editors he perceives as "the enemy", such as making absurd deletion proposals on articles they have created for deletion, proposals of such a nature that they have little if any chance of success, in all appearance jsut to harass those editors, (6) making substantial edits with edit summaries that misrepresent the nature of those edits, adding phony "sources" in an attempt to make non-notable subjects appear to be notable, and so on. Examples of these are documented elsewhere in this discussion, so I will not take up space by giving such examples again. There certainly is a problem here. There is scope for disagreement as to the extent of the problem, but those who deny that there is any problem are failing to see the facts clearly. DGG (below) describes Col Warden as "one of the people here who does the most constructive work in properly improving articles", but I beg to differ. Col Warden is one of the people here who does the most work in attempting to save articles from deletion. however, the problem is that Col Warden's attempts at saving articles is totally indiscriminate. If there are, for example, good sources available, then Col Warden will add them, which is good, but if there aren't good sources available then Col Warden will often add bad or phony sources, which is not good. I have every respect for DGG, who is a conscientious and constructive editor. However, I think that DGG's own rather inclusionist view leads to a general tendency to see work to save articles as good, without perhaps giving each case the necessary critical appraisal to see whether it really is good. Col Warden sometimes does improve articles, and sometimes that leads to a fully justifiable saving of an article from deletion. However, with a similar frequency he does damage in his fervour to save at all costs. As Bali ultimate has pointed out, the problem is in the overall pattern, and pointing out that sometimes Col Warden does good is missing that point. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
32. The battleground behaviour is all too apparent, but the willingness to degrade articles (e.g. citing unread sources or diffusing the topic) in order to "save" them is even more worrying. Kanguole 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
33. Entirely too much truth about CW creating Gettysburgs. Collect (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
34. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by DGG

The Col. is one of the people here who does the most constructive work in properly improving articles. It is only to be expected that the community will sometimes judge the final result to be an article not worth keeping. That's why we have AfD discussions. Nobody here or anywhere else in the world works without any error, and I have yet to find anyone who has been 100% consistently perfect in adding or removing tags, myself including. The more active someone is, the more likely there will be a few noticeable errors. I 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. (Indeed, a few people above specifically say just that -- what they object to his his overall work.) He is indeed devoted to rescuing everything reasonably possible, but it's policy to do exactly that, and the disagreement is that different people here have different standards of what is reasonably possible, and certainly about what they in particular are prepared to do personally. But this is why we have discussions about the results. Nothing he can possibly do will result in there being kept an article that should not be kept. No editor or even admin can do that. I think anyone commenting to censure him ought to look rather if they have taken all the opportunities they have to source articles. Unless they're prepared to do so, it's their behavior that needs to be examined and improved--I want to make clear that this does not apply to everyone who has censured him above, some of whom are excellent editors.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. DGG's statement is mature and reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
3. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. On target. --RegentsPark (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Yep. I agree. He has done a lot of amazing work. Dream Focus 05:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. BOZ (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
8. --Cyclopia^talk 23:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
9. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Totally agree. The Colonel has an exceptional gift in finding items of human interest to include in a remarkably broad range of topics, a great sense of balance and the honed skills in interpreting sources of a trained scientist. Even if one finds his approach to tags unconstructive, and Id agree the concern about overly terse edit summaries for controversial actions was valid, most reasonable folk would surely recognise the small % of objectionable edits are far outweighed by his 20,000+ good contributions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Indeed, per DGG and Feyd. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
12. I don't hang out at AFD but in my article-space interactions with Colonel Warden I haven't seen examples of what Bali ultimate calls "retention of not just bad articles, but misleading articles". Finding references for articles can be terribly hard, slow work, and in this respect Colonel Warden is an outstanding contributor. - Pointillist (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
14. Concur --Mike Cline (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
16. Support strongly. Okip 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment by Reyk

I've held off putting in an outside view until now because I have been respecting SnottyWong's desire to restrict this to just the tag removal issue, but since the cat is well and truly out of the bag now I might as well go ahead. The tag thing is just one aspect of Colonel Warden's behaviour that I find objectionable. I had my first real run-in with Colonel Warden back in February; I'd criticised the ARS because several of their members had cobbled together an article using phony sourcing and within the hour Colonel Warden had trolled through my article creations to find one to PROD as retaliation. Sjakkalle's outside statement demonstrates a pattern of punitive deletion nominations.

Since then, I have found Colonel Warden to be consistently confrontational, frequently dishonest and evasive when challenged, and often disruptive. One need only search for his name on ANI to find instances of

• Deceitful edit summaries: here, here, and here among others
• Disrupting an AFD by moving the article around during the discussion; very A Nobodyesque.
• Making a Nazi slur on a discussion involving Judaism. How anybody could possibly think that's appropriate is beyond me.
• This threat against another editor over a trivial list AfD is going back a bit but demonstrates that Colonel Warden has a vindictive streak a mile wide, and other later incidents show that it hasn't really mellowed with time. I include it to point out that CW's bad behaviour has been going on for at least two years.
• Phony sources. One example is here: CW uses a book published in 1997 as a source for an article on a TV episode aired in 2003 1998. Others have complained too: , , , , among others.

These diffs, and many provided above by other editors demonstrate that Colonel Warden has been consistently disruptive, deceitful, and vindictive. I believe this behaviour needs to stop.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Reyk _YO! 06:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Yup; I recall that threat (and I was banned at the time, but still 'around'); it's worth finding. The core issue with Colonel Warden is WP:BATTLEGROUND. During the E&C cases, the AC offered: Parties instructed and warned:

   The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. (I've added the underlining.)

   I believe that the whole broader concern re some disruptive ARS members stems from these cases and that it is all the same dispute. Note that in the E&C2 case the committee issued an injunction that applied to *all* editors and I believe the ruling also applies to all editors. Jack Merridew 07:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
4. the deceitful intent is worrying and not at all helpful to the WP project, amazing that his supporters even claim he does amazing work when he will backhandedly be deceitful and disrupt other's work at every opportunity. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
5. The frequent deceit, particular over the content and nature of sources, is troubling.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
6. AD 12:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Deceitfulness like this should not be tolerated.Griswaldo (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Thanks, Reyk, for offering some background history to shed the light on CW's problematic behavior regarding deletion in general. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 15:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Agreed. 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. AniMate 23:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Off the express topic of this RFC, but I have to say that the misrepresentation of sources is what gets my goat. I will never understand how some people can think that they are "rescuing" articles by so disfiguring them. Deor (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
12. More evidence of a user being unable to play well with others. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Yo! pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
14. T. Canens (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
15. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
16. I endorse this complaint, esp the evasiveness when challenged. I had a long disagreement with CW back in April over London Bus routes AFDs, some of which CW added refs to. There were several problematic episodes, and the first one I found one related to London Buses route E8. When I checked these refs they didn't support the facts asserted, even by synthesis, so I reverted them and explained my concerns in detail on the talk page. CW was one of two editors to restore the synthesis without discussing the concerns I had set out on the talk page, and he did so twice ( and ). That second revert had an edit summary of "revert per talk", which was blatantly dishonest: it was 8 days after I had posted my concerns to the talk page and received no response from CW or anyone else.
    In the resulting discussion, CW's first response on talk was 7 days after his first restoration of the synthesis and 3 hours after his second restoration, but he carefully avoided the central issue of synthesis; his second response again avoided the issue. CW made no further response, and left it to other editors to sort out the mess. I don't know whether the misrepresentation of sources was intentional, but a good faith editor would not simply try to evade concerns about sourcing. This was only a few days after CW had told me on his talk page that I had not applied "due diligence" in making AFD nominations and reminded me here that "all edits are open to challenge". It seems to me that not only did CW fail to apply due diligence in his use of sources, he rendered that "open to challenge" useless by not even engaging with the challenge, even tho my concerns with the sources were set out both at AFD (where CW made no response at all). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

    PS On CW's talk current talk page, there are two posts from an editor who queries CW's addition of a reference which does not appear to be supported by the book cited. CW simply refuses to discuss the source, saying "I'm not very interested in Power Rangers". If he's not interested, then WTF did he add the reference?
    Again, CW's insistence that all edits are "open to challenge" is not one which he applies to himself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

17. Very disruptive editor. - Ahunt (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Reyk's summary is spot on. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
19. Kanguole 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by BOZ

I don't know whether it is appropriate to do so, but I felt I would split my view into two parts, since it is essentially about two separate issues. I expect that some editors would want to endorse one part, and not the other.

Outside view by Feyd Huxtable

The concern about the Colonel counter noming articles belonging to delete voters is superficially damming so Id like to address it. Is it really credible to think that someone with the Colonel's experience and obvious analytical ability could possibly think there was a chance of deleting an article on a chess opening which had been the dedicated topic of entire books? Probably not , which leaves us to conclude the Colonel wasnt really trying to revenge-delete but was merely trying to communicate how unpleasant it is to have your article attacked at AfD. As the project advertises itself as the "encyclopaedia where any one can edit", theres an ethical imperative for us to ensure Newbies contributions are cherished, even if they dont happen to be elite academics with flexibility to swiftly understand our editing norms. Very few remaining editors are more effective defenders of our vision and of newbies' interests than the Colonel. We may still consider counter-noming less than perfectly collegiate, but it does suggest the Colonel is willing to risk even appearing spiteful so as to possibly reduce the chance of other articles being lost. Im not sure whether this exceptional selflessness results from an almost ANobody level of compassion for others or it could just be the Colonel being exactly what he appears to be: A classic English gentlemen , largely indifferent to popular approbation with his conduct guided by a scrupulous sense of honour. Anyways, as per DGG all editors with a high number of contributions are likely to have a few problematic edits, but we shouldnt let any strong feelings those might arouse prevent us from recognising when an overwhelming share of the contribs are positive.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Endorse at least the general principle expressed - that we should look at the work of the editor in totality rather than at individual actions because, when dealing with a prolific editor, there will naturally be a reasonable number of problematic ones. I have no comment on the motivational analysis expressed above mainly because speculating about motivations is usually pointless. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Very well said. Dream Focus 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
4. The greater the number of edits, the greater the possibility of one being problematic. Being willing to discuss and correct is what is important, and such wilingness is being seen from CW. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Thparkth

I am going to restrict my remarks to the points actually raised in the initial complaint. There are essentially three substantive complaints, supported by evidence:

• That CW has removed prod tags without providing a reason
• That CW has removed cleanup tags when others believe they should not have been removed
• That CW has edit warred.

The removal of prod tags is the prerogative of any editor, and may be done for any good faith reason, with or without discussion. WP:PROD explicitly notes that an editor is not required to provide an explanation for removing a prod tag. Doing so simply means "I do not believe this article should be summarily deleted" and is never a disruptive act when done in good faith.

Edit warring is of course deplorable, and if this is a regular part of CW's conduct then he certainly needs to address it. But no one has presented evidence that this is a frequent occurrence. If it is not, then it is not really necessary to comment on it further in this RFC/U - it should be dealt with when it occurs in the usual manner.

That only leaves the removal of cleanup tags. To summarize what I see as the four basic accusations here; the removals are against policy, the removals are unexplained, the removals are incorrect, and the high frequency of the former issues occurring adds up to disruption.

The removals are against policy - I disagree - there is no policy requiring editors to explain their removal of cleanup tags. This is a good thing - because there is also no policy requiring editors to explain their addition of cleanup tags, and they are often added incorrectly.

The removals are unexplained - I agree - this is definitely true. CW is in the habit of removing cleanup tags while offering no explanation for his doing so.

The removals are incorrect - I partially agree - in the majority of cases, after some puzzling, I can see that there is a possibly-valid reason for removing some or all of the tags. Removing tags is after all inherently a judgement call. In some cases I cannot find any justification at all, and I suspect that they were removed thoughtlessly or accidentally. Either way, the error rate is too high.

The removals are disruptive - I disagree - I do not believe that the removal of these cleanup tags amounts to disruption. Each individual edit was acceptable per policy, there is no evidence of bad faith, or of a deliberate attempt to prevent normal processes from functioning, and no evidence of disruption actually resulting. Just as CW was free to remove cleanup tags he disagreed with, any other editor was free to revert his removal. This is not disruption, even when done on a large scale - this is how wikipedia works.

In conclusion, I do not believe that CW's activities amount to disruption. However they do amount to a significant annoyance. He could, and definitely should, take more care to avoid removing necessary cleanup tags, and he should get into the habit of leaving at least a brief note explaining his removals. I would welcome a voluntary undertaking along those lines, but I don't think it would be appropriate or necessary to ask him to wholly refrain from working in this area.

It is very easy to add an inappropriate cleanup tag - literally a couple of clicks in Twinkle. No explanation is needed, or very often provided when someone does this. It is valuable to the project to have people like Colonel Warden working to balance this out, because excessive and unnecessary cleanup tags really do reduce the utility of an article. But this work needs to be done with extreme care, because the opportunity for error is high, and as we see in this RFC/U, the community's tolerance of such errors is limited. So I would like to finish by expressing my support for CW's work in principle, but also with a strong note of caution that he must proceed more carefully, with less errors, and better explanation. He should also consider adopting a voluntary 1 revert rule, at least with regard to cleanup tags.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Thparkth (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
2. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Agree. Not too long ago I came across an AFD for an article that was tagged with 13 different tags by the nominator... half of which were completely inapplicable to the article under discussion. There should be as much onus placed on incorrectly tagging an article as there apparently is in removing a tag. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. It is disruptive to spam articles with horrible looking and unnecessary tags that are almost always ignored anyway, not to remove such nonsense. Dream Focus 04:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Polargeo (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Unwarranted tags are unsightly and applying them too often clogs up the associated work queues. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
8. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
9. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

View by somewhat involved user Beeblebrox

This section is added solely to rebut the view by Feyd Huxtable. That view advocates a blatant disregard for the idea that we not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. This is a grossly irresponsible position to take and I'm appalled that even one user has endorsed it. Nominating an article for deletion just to teach somebody a lesson about how it feels would be a clear act of bad faith, something any good Wikipedian would never do. (note that I'm not saying that this is even an accurate depiction of this incident, the Colonel has indicated he did intend for the article to be deleted, this is merely a response to Feyd's defense of what he imagined the Col. motivations to be.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Reyk _YO! 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Quite, what a disruptive and vindictive thing to do. AD 23:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Griswaldo (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Much of Feyd's view made sense, but not the idea that the Colonel maliciously tried to delete an article that he didn't think merited deletion, or that if he'd done so it would have been anything other than a personal attack. ϢereSpielChequers 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
6. This is just an exaggerated example of the mindset which is pervasive throughout many of the editors who are participating in this RfC, and it is the source of the WP:BATTLE mentality between those who consider themselves inclusionists and deletionists. I have expounded more on my opinion's about Feyd's view on the RfC's talk page. SnottyWong ^express 23:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
7. AniMate 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
8. damn straight. This'll give Bali ultimate's view a run ;0 Jack Merridew 00:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Rd232 ^talk 01:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Yeah ... I wasn't really too bothered about commenting at this RFC, but that view of Feyd's is so utterly bizarre I actually wondered if it was a joke; thus, an endorsement here. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Very strange view indeed.--Nuujinn (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (augmented per request to clarify) Feyd Huxtable's conclusion that CW nominated an article for deletion to teach the author how it feels to have an article deleted is speculation, and I think not useful here. If it were true, it would be pointy behavior, and not justifiable. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
12. I have to challenge the statement that "Much of Feyd's view made sense". If any of it did, I would encourage people to specifically point that section out. I think that having that view or endorsing it brings questions of competence to mind.—Kww(talk) 02:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
13. Well, this has very little to do with CW. And that FH's grasp on reality is a little tenuous is axiomatic. But it's fully accurate so i'll sign here. It is a reminder that there are broader issues at play, and that competence is one of them.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
14. I've seen some very strained defences of CW's behaviour on this RfC, but Feyd Huxtable's has the unique quality of making said behaviour look worse not better: the level of WP:OWNER & WP:BATTLEFIELD it assumes would not only be highly corrosive to Wikipedia, but downright unhealthy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Nor was there any need to "teach me a lesson" at all, because I have experienced seeing articles of my creation up on AFD before. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate for deletion. The defense given by Feyd is very strained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
16. Retaliatory nominations only cause bad blood. There is a difference between a) going over someone's contributions and finding an article that should be deleted b) looking at the articles created by an editor and nominating one of them just to teach the editor a lesson, even if the article didn't merit deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
17. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Endorse as a rejection of Feyd Huxtable's view - unsupportable allegations about CW's motivations do nobody any credit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
19. FH's position is pretty much the diametric opposite of reality. Unlike WereSpielChequers, I don't consider any of it to make sense except in the case where one has rejected a great chunk of Wikipedia's consensus on everything from the inclusion threshold to what the community thought of Le Grand Roi / A Nobody. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
20. I had a hard time parsing FH's comments, but they do appear to support CW making a pointy AfD nom, and that worries me. No opinion at this time if the nom was purely pointy or not... Hobit (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
21. I agree. Hrafn expressed it well above (04:46 on 11 Dec): Hrafn: FeydHuxtable's proposition makes depressing reading. - Pointillist (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
22. Quantpole (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
23. Yes. With friends like FeydHuxtable ... pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
24. Yes. It was distinctly unhelpful. Kanguole 17:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
25. Have to admit my unwise speculation on motives wasnt expressed very clearly. Also I was wrong, per the Colonel on the talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
26. Agreed and glad to see FeydHuxtable agree too.Shooterwalker (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
27. That speculation, if it were true, would have pretty much transformed a questionable incident into unambiguous misconduct. T. Canens (talk) 10:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
28. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
29. Retaliatory XFDs are a highly disruptive form of assuming bad faith. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
30. - Ahunt (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

View by Kww

Tag behaviour aside, what I have always found most objectionable about Colonel Warden is his habit of consciously using deceitful edit summaries. These are not accidental omissions: I am convinced that he purposely omits mentioning any time he has undone a redirect from his edit summary in order to make it more difficult for people to discover when he has done so. For those that say "You can always tell from the change in size", that's only true if you go the the history of each individual article: the size change of an article doesn't appear on his contribution list.

• Most recent example
• An earlier one
• An earlier one

We've discussed this before, and the best way to describe his response is "evasive". I could take an hour and find more of these if people need to. What I cannot find is an incident where he has undone a redirect and mentioned that fact in his edit summary. These are enough to show that he has lied in the past, was told not to lie, and expressed an intention to lie again. Such behaviour can not be overlooked.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Kww(talk) 15:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

2. This is behaviour that we've all been over before in the E&C cases. E&C2: Parties instructed and warned:

   The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. (I've added the underlining.)

   The same dispute has rolled along for more than 3 years. fwiw, I recall A Nobody doing exactly the same thing when resurrecting merged articles. The mindset here is to DENY the existence of the redirect, and whatever editors and discussion were involved, and simply focus on the prior non-redirect rev as the last 'legit' rev. This is pure BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Yes one of the ongoing problems, which gets to his overall complete contempt for the work of lots of others who disagree with him. The fiasco at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biker's bell is also illustrative of his general battlefield demeanor.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
5. Yup. This is indisputably dishonest behaviour. A Nobody used to do this all the time too, and look where that got him. Reyk _YO! 21:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
6. The Colonel clearly loves using summaries that don't actually convey what he is doing. AniMate 00:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. Can't see how this can be disputed. It's flagrant deceit, and as it was pointed out as problematic in the various discussions ooncerning Le Grand Roi / A Nobody there is no way CW can feign ignorance as to its being unacceptable (his having been privy to all of those discussions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 02:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
8. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
9.  pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
10. Additionally worrying that two of them (Bitblinder and Saint Francis of Assisi school) revert AFD outcomes. Kanguole 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
12. ThemFromSpace 06:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
13. As part of a broader pattern... yes... we should ask Colonel Warden to improve his edit summaries. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
14. AD 12:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Quite obvious. T. Canens (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
16. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
17. A few mistaken edit summaries happen in error, but this list shows a long pattern of edit summaries which disguise the major action of reversing a merge. This is explicable only as part of a pattern of deliberately trying to deceive other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
18. Obvious history of deliberate deception. - Ahunt (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

View by sgeureka

This RfC is about CW's edit behavior, and there is a longish list at the top of CW's edits that are perceived as problematic. It's good that some of these edits get defended and are shown to be non-critical (positive) contributions. But I get the impression that the used defense here is Some of CW's edits can be demonstrated to be good/unproblematic/allowed-per-policy, so all other "evidence" is questionable as well. Is anyone here really willing to stand up and say there is no problematic edit behavior on CW's part? If yes, I am puzzled why we had so many ANI threads and now this RfC. And if no, then let's please work together to find a solution to this problem. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
2. The halo effect always confounds these things. Good content contribution really is a completely separate issue from misbehaviour, but people use one to excuse the other.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Endorse the notion we need to work together to define/solve the problem. I do see some problematic issues that I hope CW will address. I think some of the problem is that there's momentum from the past confrontations between multiple editors all around and a conflation of general ARS with the issues specific to CW. I'm not very experienced with RFCs, but this one seems muddy to me, for lack of a better word. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
4. I agree, and take partial responsibility. I've been alerted that a few of the diffs given as evidence have minor mistakes in their descriptions. Also, the "prod removed without explanation" really seemed to throw people off. I wasn't smart enough to realize that these minor errors would be blown out of proportion by CW's political team, and used to imply that none of the diffs represent improper behavior. If that is the case, I am also confused why we had two rounds of ANI and a block prior to this RfC. I will try to find some time today to review the diffs and correct any errors. SnottyWong ^spout 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
5. This issues with Colonel Warden's edits go back at least three years; I believe this is where I first encountered him. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Nobody has said that CW doesn't make positive contributions as well. Of course he does, that's why the RFC instead of a block/ban discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
7. You might be able to quibble about some of the individual diffs, but when Colonel Warden's behaviour is considered as a whole the inescapable conclusion is that his behaviour has been very dubious for a long time. Reyk _YO! 22:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
8. Well said. AniMate 07:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
9. Endorsing this, in conjunction with my endorsement of WereSpielChequers's view further up, should give an accurate reflection of what I think here. Not everything listed is all that problematic, but there clearly is a problem, and a fair amount of that trouble has to do with the Colonel's approaches. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
10.  pablo 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
11. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
12. Casting my support for nuance. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
13. The failure, in these situations, to admit to any wrong doing, is what troubles me the most, and as others have pointed out, lead inevitably to drama.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
14. As with A Nobody, ARS members seem unable to think about one of their own neutrally. AD 12:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
15. Per my comment at WereSpielChequers's view above. T. Canens (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Meta view by Shooterwalker

I hope there are enough people who grasp the irony here. People are proposing to reduce the WP:battleground by bringing factions into this. "The deletionists are trying to ban the Colonel because he's an inclusionist! We need to target them too or close this RFC at once!" Versus "the inclusionists are protecting the Colonel blindly and need to be censured en masse!"

Do you want to know why we have a battleground?

It's because we've become a community that's incapable of focusing on the poor behavior of a single editor in a proportional manner. The cheap defense is to excuse the individual by referring to the group, and the cheap attack is to go for a ban. Colonel Warden hasn't disrupted Wikipedia even remotely close to doing anything bannable. But the diffs provided here show a troubling pattern between the misleading edit summaries (whether on purpose or due to neglect), nominating articles for deletion to prove a WP:point, and (yes) breaking Godwin's law. Not "off with his head" trouble, but "makes Wikipedia unnecessarily hostile" trouble.

We have to learn to "hate the sin, but love the sinner". Or else we have a battleground between "ban the sinner" and "go ahead and sin, they do it too".

In disputes such as these... we ought to use SMALL remedies here to nip low grade bad behavior in the bud... If only to say "please don't do that again". Shooterwalker (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes Polargeo (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Amen - the battle lines were drawn as soon as someone said "Colonel Warden did..." BOZ (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Well said. Thparkth (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I don't think that loving sinners is necessary, but tolerating them so long as they commit to correcting their behaviour is.—Kww(talk) 13:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Agree. Col. Warden has to acknowledge that, whether the reasons are right or wrong, his actions are upsetting a reasonable number of reasonable editors. When that happens, a rethink and a change in behavior is warranted so a de-escalating solution has to come from him. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
7. limited support, specifically the part about the community being incapable of focusing appropriately; not the part re small remedies for large problems. I've made numerous comments re “sins vs sinners”: here, and here. There's another I looked for but didn't find (a comment @Raul). Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat late view by I42

I encountered Colonel Warden some while back, when he removed a PROD notice without explanation and I requested his rationale. I found him difficult, to the point where I decided that further interaction with him would be counter productive. His user page remained on my watchlist and I have observed some of his interactions with others with similar dismay. However, whilst I have over time personally considered him to be arrogant, evasive and capable of misrepresenting any policy to suit himself, I have also had the opinion that he is generally intent on improving Wikipedia, that differing opinions sensibly argued generally produce good results so disagreements can be good, and that he was facing a somewhat unfair degree of criticism - especially as adding content is generally much harder than removing it. In other words, his overall contribution was generally positive and on that basis we should support him here. I even secretly harboured the view that some of the wikidrama he provokes is in itself a good thing - I am convinced that some editors here, perhaps myself included, actually enjoy it and probably spend more time here than they otherwise would because of it.

As this RfC has progressed and more of his behaviour has surfaced I have changed my mind. Wikipedia's greatest problem is its perception of being unreliable - the smallest inaccuracy taints the high quality of the vast majority of its content. His unreliable sourcing is of the greatest concern to me; we now cannot trust anything he has added. What I now see is an editor who is creating more work than he is contributing. Couple that with his inability to work collaboratively and you see someone whose contribution is overwhelmingly negative. Whatever his reasons or motivations, and I assume they are with good intent, this editor is a detriment to the project and should therefore be encouraged to move on. I42 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Very accurate assessment, I found the same in watching his actions over many months. Ahunt (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

   I endorse the assessment in the second paragraph, but cannot endorse this view because I cannot support the last sentence, which appears to seek to pressure Col W to stop editing wikipedia. Sometimes it is necessary to block or ban editors, but I do not hold with driving editors away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2. Partial endorse- I agree with the second paragraph, particularly where you emphasize the damage phony sources do to Wikipedia's credibility. But I think I have to reject the last sentence, as BHG says. I would only support driving an editor away from Wikipedia if they were fundamentally incompatible with it, and I don't agree that Colonel Warden is. He is capable of doing a lot of good work, all that's being asked is that he accept that the community finds a lot of what he does underhanded and disruptive and that he should knock it off. That can be either easier or harder than walking away from the encyclopedia, depending on the character of the person. Reyk _YO! 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
3. Partial endorse per Reyk and BrownHairedGirl. In a project this size, not everyone is going to line up ideologically. However, he's got to cut out the tricks. AniMate 03:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
4. Partial endorse as above; this user should be encouraged to change their ways (which is what this is all about) rather than move on. pablo 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
5. I believe that Colonel Warden has good intentions, but I42 is right: whatever the intentions, the effect of his actions is to do more harm than good. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
6. Yup, per JamesBWatson, and I refer folks to his comment endorsing Bali ultimate's view, above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
7. Unlike others, I see no particular value in encouraging Colonel Warden to remain on the project, so I don't have any strong objection to the second paragraph.—Kww(talk) 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
8. If they wish to remain, they will have to change their behavior. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then I see no problem saying that they should simply move on to somewhere else, good intentions or not. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Clear edit summaries

1) As is true of all editors, Colonel Warden is expected to make clear edit summaries. In particular when undoing a redirect or removing a tag he is expected to clearly note such actions in the edit summary.

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Absolutely. I might suggest that "clearly" be specifically defined as "indicated in English words without requiring consultation of specialised glossary pages".—Kww(talk) 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Many people, including myself, use abbreviations/localisms all the time in edit summaries. I use "r" for reply, "k" for keep, "+1 support" for RfA none of which are overly clear without having been here for a while. I looked over your contributions and saw you generally used pretty clear descriptions though you often had edit summaries that were just the the section name (including at things like ANI). I think "clearly" in this case can be within the localisms that are commonly used around here. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• The trouble is that what seems to one editor to be so clear as to be unproblematic may not be clear to another. I have been on Wikipedia for well over 4 years, and have made well over 40000 edits, but until i read teh above comment I had no idea that "r" meant "reply". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I finally saw there was something in this section. CW should agree to do this, whether he feels he breached it or not, to draw to help draw a close to this neverending RFC.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. The higher the chances that someone would oppose a particular edit, the clearer and detailed the edit summary has to be to alert to more scrutiny. Reverting to and from redirects is such a matter, adding and removing tags also. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

   Agreed on the redirects, not so sure tags are generally thought of as likely to be opposed, but no real objection to I favor including them here. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1. any redir must be indicated, tags vary;Obviously anyone removing a tag like NPOV should say so. But if I say +reference, I don't see the need to also say I've changed the unref tag to refimprove. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the case of an editor whose edit summaries and tag removals have been questioned to such an extent, is there any harm in asking for the tiny extra bit of work in adding "& remove ref tag"? DGG, you say "if I say +reference", but that is a different matter from "if Colonel Warden says +reference", because as far as I am aware your detagging and use of edit summaries have never been questioned. (And if they have been, then, from my experience of your editing, it is certainly not a significant problem.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

To quote WP:EDITSUMMARY:

It is considered good practice to always provide an edit summary, but it is especially important when reverting the actions of other editors

I would expect CW from now on to clearly explain WHAT he is reverting in an edit summary and WHY. "WHY" is partially for his own benefit too, to repair the trust and show independent onlookers the good faith motivations behind his reverts. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful use of sources

2) As all editors, Colonel Warden is expected to accurately reflect material from reliable sources in the text of articles.

Comment by parties:

An almost verbatim restatement of WP:V doesn't strike me as a particularly useful solution. SnottyWong ^confer 21:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Unfortunately necessary.—Kww(talk) 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this accurately touches on the problems seen. Hobit (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A terse restatement of policy is exactly what is needed for behavior problems close to the borderline. Consider it parole. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This a persistent problem with CW, and restating policy is needed here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a persistent and pervasive problem with many editors, not uniquely him, and perhaps not even particularly him. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most editors are willing to discuss issues when a source is challenged. Colonel Warden is not. Sorry, but this does need to be stated for him, unless you think refusing to discuss fraudulent sources is acceptable. AniMate 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of "snippet" views from Google Books

3) While Google Books is a valuable resource for research, its "snippet view" feature is not sufficiently reliable to use for sourcing. Colonel Warden is expected not to include any sourcing from Google Books unless the view that Google Books provides includes the entire referenced page, not a small subset thereof.

Comment by parties:

While Google Books is a handy tool for finding sources, it has limitations and shouldn't be used in excess of those limitations. More generally, CW should focus on quality rather than quantity. Rather than using Google Books to rapidly find sources for hundreds of articles - sources which may or may not be applicable, you often can't tell because you can only see one or two sentences - it would benefit the project if CW would slow down and work on improving articles using sources to which he has full access. SnottyWong ^babble 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• To the extent this suggestion evolved from the discussion on the talk page started by Bali today, you should note that he withdrew it. Furthermore, this restriction would be a shame as proposed. AfD nominations that don't do google book searches to even see if book sources even exist on a topic are too frequent. You can sometimes find sourceable facts from Google snippets, e.g., birthdates, dates in office for officials, etc. Also, if you play a bit with Google books, depending on the source, you can sometimes obtain multiple snips, or additional text from Google search results that don't appear in the snips. And sometimes you can also go to Amazon (which we generally won't link to, or at least I don't) and get even more text, beyond google books, if the "Look Inside" feature is used at Amazon. I agree that Google books snips have limitations and snip access only should be identified as such in best practice.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• While the two proposals above this one reflect expectations on all users, this one seems to place a unique restriction on CW that other editors are not being asked to abide by. I recommend editing or removing this proposal to reflect something closer to what the community's actual expectations are, re: usage of Google Book's snippet view. BOZ (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Based on the limited evidence of wrongdoing on this specific issue... I agree with BOZ. Maybe a lighter reminder. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I find it frustrating how many examples people need before they accept the existence of a pattern. I checked nine deleted articles where he had used "+cite" in the edit summary, and found four problems. Can someone suggest the "lighter reminder" that would be acceptable? —Kww(talk) 14:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• A simple statement that the snippet ought to include sufficient material to justify its use would be more than adequate. And should be a general rule. Barring the use would be overkill. Collect (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Collect I think has the correct wording. Snippets vary. It is unfortunately true they can sometimes be unrepresentative or misleading, but, for that matter, so can longer quotations. A great many editors use them unthinkingly, hoping they'll be right or --more often-- just not realizing the problem. The link to GBooks for a modern work is enough of an indication. Ideally, nobody should quote from a book unless they've read the book through, and also looked for criticism on it & checked the standing of the author. But this is an unavoidable limitation in our practically attainable quality-- there is no such thing as a scholarly work that anybody can edit. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• This neglects the noted behaviour pattern of Colonel Warden to interpret every soft limit in his own favor. I selected "entire page" as a threshold simply because it is measurable and generally sufficient. Using a phrase like sufficient material would be useless.—Kww(talk) 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I share Kww's concerns. I don't know whether CW is being intentionally misleading in his use of snippets refs to imply that he has studied enough of the page for the context to be be clear, or whether he is just being sloppy. But the fact that CW repeatedly misuses snippets creates a need for a more specific restraint on CW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Insomuch as the repeated evidence suggests it, CW's lack of diligence in verifying that his sources do in fact back up what he claims that they back up is indeed intentional. The benefit of the doubt is long-gone here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that wrt to snippet view, the solution is simple: regardless of any wider guidance over the use of snippet view, CW should refrain from using any snippet views as references.
  If CW repeatedly misuses a type of source, then simply tell him to stop using it. That leaves unresolved the wider problem of CW's misuse of sources, but it does close off one aspect of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nonsense. His occasional carelessness in this regard is similar to many other editors. I se no evidence that he is particularly careless. In practice, not being a particularly scholarly group of people in general, we use what we can get. My own standards have been gradually slipping the longer I work here--at least when I work outside my own relatively narrow group of special subjects. There is no more reason to censure him than to censure the community in general--and if we did censure the community in general, we'd have to accept a much lower density of references. I notice that the German and French WPs, which are both more academically careful than we, do not have the cult of expecting everything to be sourced in sentence by sentence detail. We've set a standard that almost nobody here can meet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

• Actually, it's a fairly easy standard: everyone makes mistakes (such as you not being able to sign your comments on this page, for example), and if they are rapidly corrected when pointed out, no one really cares. It's the fact that he misrepresents sources and then refuses to discuss his misrepresentation that makes it appear that they are intentional. If they actually are mistakes, refusing to discuss them leads any reasonable observer to the conclusion that there is something to hide.—Kww(talk) 03:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussing concerns over sources

4) Where Colonel Warden's use of a source is challenged, he will discuss the objections on the talk page of the article concerned.

Comment by parties:

This attempts to address the problems I identified above . I'm not happy with my current wording of his, because it does not address CW's practice of snidely commenting on concerns about a source without actually engaging in good faith to try to resolve those concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Perhaps "Where Colonel Warden's use of a source is challenged, he will earnestly attempt to address the objections on the talk page of the article concerned." or something along those lines. I agree that CW tends to brush aside good-faith concerns as contemptible nuisances and not his problem, often smugly belittling the objector in the process. Reyk _YO! 09:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your suggested wording is better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

1. Is this some additional thing beyond what everyone is supposed to do? It seems reasonable advice to everyone, but I'm not sure if this means someone will be yelling for him to be blocked anytime someone feels he's not "earnest" enough. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   I think this is worded so that Colonel Warden can no longer give evasive answers like this one. It is reasonable advice, but when someone refuses to discuss in good faith less latitude can and should be given to them. AniMate 22:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

   Fair enough, that response isn't acceptable, I agree. Hobit (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries referring to talk page

5) CW will not use edit summaries saying "per talk" unless he has discussed the matter on the talk page and his edit reflects the consensus of those discussions.CW will not use edit summaries saying 'per talk' unless he has given a clear and adequate explanation for his edit on article talk

Comment by parties:

This addresses the problems the abuse involved in this edit summary, where CW reinstated disputed content even though neither he nor anyone else had responded to the concerns set out on the article's talk page. It may seem rather too specific to be a standalone point, but I propose it because the use of an edit summary which wrongly implies that the edit reflects the consensus outcome of a non-existent discussion is so grossly misleading to other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The talk in question was made at the same time. The usage just indicates that my objections and reasons for reverting are posted on the talk page. The edit summary does not assert a claim of consensus - it doesn't even use the word. This usage is per the recommendation of WP:EDSUM: "For example: reverted edits by User:Example, see talk for rationale"

Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the talk page was edited many hours after the change. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• There was more than one exchange on that day. This diff better matches the timing of the first one above. Essentially, there was quite a long discussion on the talk page and so that's where editors should look for an explanation of the issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, that looks a lot more reasonable. BHG, could you explain your worry here? Given that he had just edited the talk page with an argument, I think the edit summary "per talk" is perfectly reasonable. Now you might disagree with the edit or comment and you might even feel that it was unclear or unhelpful. But it's pretty standard to have such an edit summary rather than rehashing a more detailed argument on a talk page. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hobit, I had explained it all below, but you may have missed my explanation because somebody collapsed it. I have now uncollapsed it so you can see the full explanation, but in summary: CW made 3 reverts in which he reinserted disputed text after I had set out detailed concerns on the talk page. 1) reinsert with no discussion on talk; 2) reinsert with a dismissive comment on talk which made no attempt to engage with the issue 3) reinsert disputed text with a snide dismissal on talk.
  While an edit summary cannot contain a detailed argument, the problem in each of these cases was that CW said "per talk" when he had not made any serious effort to engage on talk, just two brief issue-avoiding grunts which amounted to "don't want to talk about this". So while CW says that the edit summary was meant to mean as discussed on talk, that too is misleading, because CW had not discussed it on talk, just sneered (see Talk:London Buses route E8). Now, in his reply to you, CW says " there was quite a long discussion on the talk page". That implies that CW was party to a long discussion, but he wasn't (see Talk:London Buses route E8).
  I find this while style of editing staggeringly dishonest, because CW repeatedly reinserted a mishmash synthesis of incompatible refs into an article to state conclusions which those refs support neither singly not together; he refused to discuss the problems, and now claims that his "don't want to talk about this" grunts justify his series of "per talk" reverts. Per WP:BURDEN, the onus was on CW to show that the sources supported the facts asserted, but he repeatedly refused to do that. This was not just about the accuracy of the article, because his first first revert was made while the article was being discussed at AFD, where CW wrote "have added a couple more sources. Opinions above which presume lack of notability based upon the lack of sources are thus voided". When I pointed out on talk that he sources did not sustain the facts asserted, CW did not engage; and CW did not respond to my explanation of how those trivial mentions did not demonstrate notability.
  I'm sorry that this is such a long reply, but it's because there are so many aspects to the way in which CW was gaming the system: the synthesis of incompatible refs, the failure to discuss, the reverts with an edit summary implying that he had discussed, the failure to respond to concerns about the relevance of these trivial refs to notability. This isn't just a poor edit sumary or a hit-and-run use of dodgy refs; it's an interlocking set of techniques designed to grind down other editors who challenge his misuse of sources, and to mislead any other editors who want to see what's going on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with CW on this -- "per talk" just means that you've given an explanation of the edit on article talk (generally one that is too long/complicated to fit in an edit summary). If you're making an edit on the basis of a consensus on talk, then you should explicitly state this in the edit summary (e.g. "per consensus on talk") so that any editor contemplating reverting the edit in question is clearly informed that they may be editing against a consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

[For the avoidance of doubt, I am only supporting the general practice of giving an edit summary of "per talk", with a lengthier (or earlier -- e.g. in a case where an editor first makes a comment about a problem, and then decides to actually do something about it) comment on talk -- not arguing that any specific talk comments do or don't adequately justify a given edit. If they don't, then this is no better, but also no worse, than giving a normal edit summary that doesn't adequately justify the edit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC) ]

Hrafn, please look at this in a little more detail.

The revert to which I linked was actually CW's second revert, the first revert having been made 7 days earlier.

At the point when CW made the revert to which I linked, he had just posted his first comment on the talk page, which consisted of a snide depiction of my analysis of the sources as "incoherent". That was his first response to my concerns set out on 02:40 3 April 2010, more than 24 hours before his first revert on 10:37 4 April 2010.

The diff which CW posts above is actually his second comment on the talk page, and was not, as he claims "made at the same time".

Even if CW is reasonably asserting that his edit summary was intended to be read as "per CW's explanation on talk", it still doesn't reflect the fact his his first comment on talk did not actually attempt to engage with the problems I had identified, and misrepresented them by focusing only on my final note about the apparent provenance of one of his refs, and not on the substantive problem that his use of the refs was a synthesis to "produce a result which is not supported by the sources"

His second comment on talk was that "BHG's objections seem incoherent, claiming that the sources disagree and are too much the same", which is both snide and untrue. That was second comment turn followed by a third revert, which he again summarised as "revert per talk".

So even if CW's own intent in the edit summary is as he claims, it's still misleading ... because it gives the false impression that he has made a good faith effort to address the concerns set out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That is (i) a point that I am explicitly not arguing against (see "For the avoidance of doubt..." above) & (ii) a point that your 'proposed solution' went well beyond covering.

If it were reworded to something like "CW will not use edit summaries saying 'per talk' unless he has given a clear and adequate explanation for his edit on article talk", I would probably agree with it. However, the current 'proposed solution' is far more restrictive than this, and would forbid what is (as I suggested in my original response) common and unexceptionable practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hrafn, and sorry I was being a bit slow in picking up on your intent. I have amended by proposal to use your suggested wording, which I think better addresses the problem and allays you concern about a blanket ban on CW following unexceptional prcatice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close the RfC

6) I propose closing this RfC as a failed attempt to communicate the community's dissatisfaction with many of Colonel Warden's editing behaviors. This page has been pretty inactive for several days, and it is clear that nothing more can be said or accomplished within this process. Colonel Warden has been largely unresponsive and evasive, he has not adequately addressed any of the major points brought up by anyone in this RfC (see this thread on the talk page), and he obviously doesn't intend to. To be clear, he is not required to respond to any of the comments here, but his silence is interpreted (by me, anyway) as a rejection of the apparent consensus here that many of his editing patterns are troublesome, and I can only interpret that rejection as an implication that these behaviors will eventually resume.

Comment by parties:

• Support as proposer. On a personal note, I'm done with this process of examining CW's edits and babysitting his contributions. This is not what I've come here to spend my time on. If someone else believes this matter requires further escalation to another dispute resolution forum, please feel free to initiate that process, as I won't. SnottyWong ^spout 22:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree - I am understanding CW's responses, such as they are, to this RfC as "not interested, not going to stop". - Ahunt (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree such things typically run a month, right? Let it run a month so that there are no procedural complaints when this ends up at arbcom (if his behavior doesn't change).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree- there's only about a week to run. If discussion has ground to a halt I don't see much difference in closing it now versus closing it in a week's time. Reyk _YO! 01:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree: Let it run. Only a week to go, and there's always a chance that the supporters that are preventing consensus on the major issues here will have an epiphany.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's as likely as the detractors learning to follow WP:CIVIL. Silverseren^C 01:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a problem for some of the detractors, certainly. I'm not sure it's as severe a problem as willful blindness.—Kww(talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please save threaded discussion for the talk page. I do support letting it run it's course, and I have asked the Colonel to re-engage here and at least indicate if he would be willing to abide by the proposals above. As these types of proceedings are often the last stop before arbitration it is in everyones best interest that we make every effort at arriving at a voluntary solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree This is generally a busy time for most people, but the holidays are almost over. Let's see if he'll reengage with us here, answer some of the outstanding questions, and agree to the principles listed. Obviously this isn't pleasant for him, but a refusal to participate here will only look bad if his behavior causes others to take other steps in dispute resolution. AniMate 02:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree In this edit Colonel Warden says that he is busy and may come back and comment later. He also specifies that he expects the discussion to be open for 30 days. That being so I think it would be unhelpful to close the discussion until the 30 days are up. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree given Colonel Warden still hasn't actually bothered to respond to any of the complaints about his behaviour, as opposed to the single stricken dif in the 'Statement of the dispute', the works of Samuel Johnson and who knows what other irrelevancies. I know it's a faint hope that he'll actually get around to doing so, as he's far to busy playing the same old games on AfDs -- but I think we should at least give him a chance to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. It's important that CW has a reasonable chance to respond, and this is a busy time of year. Given his lack of engagement so far, I don't see much reason to expect him to respond, but I would be delighted to find that my pessimism is misplaced. The issues discussed here are long-standing, and I don't see any compelling urgency which makes it inappropriate to allow another 7 days. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, as above; frankly running an extra week due to the holiday timing would be reasonable. I've not looked at this thing in a week. And I offer my thanks to Snottywong for getting this ball rolling; terima kasih. Jack Merridew 08:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, even though others above have good reasons for preferring this to go the distance. For more than a month now the Colonel has considerably scaled back his anti tagging activities and has been using more descriptive editing summaries. His post here confirms this change in conduct was in response to the criticism from others. So both in words and actions the Colonel has in fact addressed the core issues of this RFC – so no need to feel you've been wasting your time Snotty! As KWW admits, there is no consensus on the other major issues. Per my post on talk, the evidence submitted so far doesn't remotely support the extreme claims made about the Colonels generally excellent use of sourcing and his overall value to the project. So no reason the RfC cant be put to bed early. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• It's been thirty days now, and unfortunately no progress has been made in the past week. i have asked at WP:AN for a closer. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• Colonel Warden has said he's preparing a response. It would be reasonable to give him a bit of time for that. Kanguole 02:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
• It was on 2 January that he said that, and it is now 12 January. He previously said on 20 December that he was busy but might respond "during the Christmas break". That comment was largely responsible for my opposing the proposal to close this discussion above. However, it is now 23 days since then, and ten days since he said he was preparing a response. The discussion has been open for 36 days. Maybe we can allow a few more days, but there has to be a limit fairly soon. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)