Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PBS

Desired outcome

PBS will accept that his view, no matter how correct he believes it to be, is not the only view that matters. If several editors offer good arguments as to why they believe he is incorrect, he will accept that any continuation of said argument lacking new and compelling evidence to support his view is disruptive. Accepting that, he will remove himself from that discussion. He will also refrain from using identical arguments on the talk pages of other, similar articles.

To enforce this outcome, in any dispute to which PBS is party, he would be held to 1RR.

Description

While this description focusses mainly on Philip's activities at Guy Fawkes Night, I should point out that this appears to be only the latest example of what may be a long term behavioural problem. I appreciate this is a long section to read but I believe it best illustrates how Philip behaves, and how his behaviour needs to be moderated. Readers should know that I am very much an involved editor, both in the expansion of the GFN article, discussions on its talk page, and the edit warring that has occurred. Philip has on three occasions reported me for breaches of WP:3RR, none of which have resulted in sanctions being imposed.

PBS believes that Guy Fawkes Night does not contain enough information on the modern celebration. To this end, the best summary of his opinion would probably be that he believes that the article should appear more like this than this. He does not accept that as expert sources pay the modern celebration very little attention, believing it to be almost trivial, we should reflect the opinions of those authors in the structure of this article. He believes the contemporary image used at the top of the article (chosen by me as I believe it best reflects the event's 400-year history) is inappropriate, and that a modern 5 November photograph should be used. He argues that the article doesn't contain enough section headings, and that it should be divided roughly into centuries and countries. He has tagged "his" newly-created sections as requiring expansion, rather than expanding them himself. He feels that the article's lead, which mentions that Guy Fawkes was found guarding explosives, should read "found with barrels of gunpowder", something which would be historically incorrect (the barrels were not immediately visible to his captors). Philip also believes that as the article's References section contains explanatory notes as well as citations, it is incorrectly formatted, and that those sections should be separated. The counter argument is that there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus on such matters, and also that as the article is part of a featured topic such changes would be inappropriate. Philip has ignored this argument and repeatedly asked for clarification, prompting one or more editors to express their distaste at his actions.

In each instance above, Philip has argued his position on the article's talk page, with occasional support. Despite more editors tending to disagree than agree with his views, he apparently refuses to accept that he may be incorrect.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
2. Wikipedia:Canvassing

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Several warnings regarding edit warring, end of September 2010
2. Blocked for edit warring, October 2010
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive645#PBS Again
4. Comments from User:SlimVirgin, User:DCGeist and User:Tony1, 20 November 2010.
5. Comment from User:SlimVirgin, 25 March 2011.
6. Comment from User:Dank, 8 May 2011.

Note: brief discussion here regarding why there were no issues with certification by Parrot of Doom or SlimVirgin.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

   Examples of my attempts to resolve the dispute:

   (1) during an AN/I discussion about Philip (one started by others), 21 October 2010

   (2) during a discussion with Philip on his talk page, 20 November 2010, where I raised the possibility of a future RfC if the situation continued (see full discussion here)

   (3) a request to Philip about Guy Fawkes Night, 25 March 2011, an article I wasn't involved in, so this request was not part of the dispute itself.

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

   OpinionsAreLikeAHoles I have no idea how I got to this page, but I find it all very fascinating! Reading that enormous "summary", I must say I'm forced to conclude that PBS has acted appallingly. And for an admin! And he's reporting other people for edit warring! OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Editor was indef-blocked for name violations, never changed names, and is a suspected sockpuppeteer. This is trolling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2. -- Cirt (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Disgraceful behaviour. Skinny87 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
5. PBS has engaged in constant disruption to the Guy Fawkes night article and has clearly attempted to derail the FAC - he should, at the very least, be banned from editing the article. Richerman (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
6. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC).
7. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
9. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Jusdafax 10:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
12. especially the flora issues Gnangarra 10:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
13. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
14. It's becoming a community problem that PBS cannot see the problem. Tony (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

    I want to add my signature to this certification process. Here is a diff of where I've previously spoken up to try to resolve this chronic problem. Please let me know if more diffs are required. Tony (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC) Moved from certification section per comments by users here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

15. I'm wondering if he really needs the mop with these kinds of behavior issues... — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
17. For sure. The spark for this is far from an isolated incident. Ceoil 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
20. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
21. I do not recall having had any serious conflict with PBS, but he pops up on my radar from time to time as an aggressive point-pusher. Time needs to be called on his worrisome behaviour. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Point of order

As far as I can tell – but I am no expert on Wikipedia user RFCs as I usually steer well clear of them – this RFC is out of order.

Minimum requirements

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

The whole RFC is a shot gun approach and very nebulous so it is difficult to defend against what is not a specific allegation. When an editor has been as active as I have over a very long period of time, because differences between editors are inevitable, not because of bad faith but because editors have different opinions on what is best for the project. Before I comment on the false accusation, created using a selective differences which present the biased view at the heart of this RFC, I would like it to be considered if this RFC has followed procedure outlined above as the "Minimum requirement":

There are two users who citified this RFC in the first 48 hours of its existence: Parrot of Doom (PoD) and SlimVirgin (SV). Where in the "accompanied by evidence" ("Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute") is the statement by Parrot of Doom (one of the two "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" ) attempting to resolve it?

AFAICT unless that was provided within the first 48 hours of this RFC being opened this RFC should be deleted as uncertified.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -– PBS (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
2. -– Moonraker2 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note - a response to this view has been made here.

The point of order was a serious one and not one I think has been addressed:

• SV has provided differences of warnings but where are the "attempts to find a resolution or compromise" to her general complaint?
• PoD and I are engaged in a specific content dispute. Where is the evidence of his "attempts to find a resolution or compromise" to his accusations of general disruption? It has been argued that he has tried to find a compromise in the specific article dispute over Guy Fawkes Night. If that is true, then why has he reverted all the changes I have made to the article Guy Fawkes Night? For example if the contemporary information I re-added from the history of the article was unacceptable to him, why not allow the section heading to remain so that new information could be found and added to that section? That would have been an obvious compromise but one he chose not to follow. Instead all such changes were reverted soon after they were made usually with dismissive comments such as "Undid revision 420190901 by PBS (talk) What on earth is the point of this?". -- PBS (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Scurrilous attacks

Apologies for the tardy response, but there are several good reasons. The first is until an independent administrator looked at the into my point of order, there is no point in starting to draft anything. Second I am busy with non net related business at the moment. Thirdly I think it is generally better that others speak for me on the talk page -- a very big thank you to those who have. Thirdly this is a shotgun RfC with little focus, replying to it takes a lot of time. Indeed I would pleasantly surprised if most of the people who have added their names to this page had in fact read in detail the so called evidence presented here. This is such a biased one sided view I am surprised that such attacks are allowed on Wikipedia with apparently so few checks or balances.

Parrot of Doom

To the best of my recollection user:Parrot of Doom ("PoD") and I have only had two notable disagreements over the content of an article. Both the articles are ones to which I had contributed long before PoD started to edit them.

Observation on user contributions

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2003. In that time using the PBS account I have made over 64,000 edits. (There is an additional AWB account which has a further ~6,000 edits)

By way of comparison here are the three accounts of the people who have "certifying the basis for this dispute" this RFC (including Tony's late one now deleted)

• Parrot of Doom
• SimVirgin
• Tony1

Since the first accusation made in PoD's list in 2008 I have made between 30 and 40 thousand edits. Including thousands of edit to talk pages. So the total number of edits edits discussed here would be well under 1% of all my edit and probably less than 1% of my talk page edits.

Response to PoD's specific accusations

• "He does not accept that as expert sources pay the modern celebration very little attention, believing it to be almost trivial, we should reflect the opinions of those authors in the structure of this article".
  • Source for this accusation? I accept PoD's word that the sources PoD has read present little attention to modern celebrations. But the inference PoD draw from that is not one that other sources necessarily do. The article is called "Guy Fawkes Night" not the "History of Guy Fawkes Night (England)"
• "He believes the contemporary image used at the top of the article (chosen by me as I believe it best reflects the event's 400-year history) is inappropriate, and that a modern 5 November photograph should be used."
  • PoD's use of the term "contemporary" when he mean historic, is I think indicative of his mind set.
• He argues that the article doesn't contain enough section headings, and that it should be divided roughly into centuries and countries. He has tagged "his" newly-created sections as requiring expansion, rather than expanding them himself.
  • It depends on the section. But as PoD has repeatedly stated that he would like to see the contemporary information expanded, then why not have a request for an expansion of the contemporary section(s). Putting up an expansion template was a compromise as PoD had reverted out all but two sentences of the contemporary commemorations. If the section had remained in place for more than 24 hours expansion can start.
• He feels that the article's lead, which mentions that Guy Fawkes was found guarding explosives, should read "found with barrels of gunpowder", something which would be historically incorrect (the barrels were not immediately visible to his captors).
  • "He" should be replaced by "several editors". Following that logic, the event should not be called the "Gunpowder Plot" but the "Explosives Plot". This issue is indicative of PoD's ownership problem with this article: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily (Wikipedia:OWN#Actions)".
• Philip also believes that as the article's References section contains explanatory notes as well as citations, it is incorrectly formatted, and that those sections should be separated. The counter argument is that there is no Wikipedia-wide consensus on such matters, and also that as the article is part of a featured topic such changes would be inappropriate. Philip has ignored this argument and repeatedly asked for clarification, prompting one or more editors to express their distaste at his actions.
  • Well there is also the point that the format of the article was changed from a standard layout and no real justification has been given for not changing it back to that given as examples in in a couple of guidelines, and as some of the other articles in the "featured topic" are biographies the current format ignores the advise in WP:FNNR on the use of Bibliography as a section heading. No justification has been given for the current format other than what amounts to "I like it".

Reply to POD's list

Just because someone posts an ANI it does not mean it is valid complaint.

One (Feb 2008)

24 February 2008 This was a content dispute that came about because the nominator of an AfD had not put an explanation at the start of the AfD. I added one. A person objected to this and initiated an ANI. Note what I wrote at 14:06, 24 February 2008. After that statement there were several others by disinterested editors and the nominator of the AfD. In the end a compromise was obtained.

I think it particularity ironic that PoD raised this one, as the justification for my disruptive style, given by some who endorse this RfC and wished to use IAR to justify dismissing my "point of order over" the legitimacy of this RfC.

Two (September 2008)

The link to this particular incident was provided to PoD on on 8 May by SandyGeorge when she was making edit, before and after that one, as if she were a neutral administrator of the FAC.

The link was to a content dispute between SandyGeorge and myself. A concern of mine is the elimination of contradictory advise in policies and guidelines as it has a much larger affect on article talk pages. Sandy made two accusations. (1) verbosity and (2) edit warring. The first was made when her contribution to the section was 717 words to my 361 and others 204. As to the second as the only two editors were making reverts to the guideline, if her accusation were correct and I was edit warring then so was she, so I suggested on her talk page that as two different guidelines said different things that it was not clear there was a census but "as a compromise with you I suggest that you leave a third party to revert my changes and if they do I will not revert their revert". Not something that a die hard edit warrior would be likely to suggest, it was an offer that drew no comment from SandyGeorge.

The debate became spread out over was spread out over several pages including *Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects#Disputed (September 2008) *Wikipedia_talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Links to sister projects (October 2008).

Three

This one is mis-dated it should have been 2010 and is related to number seven in PoD's list, so I will comment on when replying to seven.

Four (February 2009)

More disruption at Wikipedia flora. This complaint gained no traction not one neutral party supported the complaint.

This was another case were we had two Wikipedia project papers advising different things. The first was the policy page and the other this guideline. These differences were causing many acrimonious requested moves, which was wasting a lot of time for a lot of people.

A bit of history. The naming conventions existed long before WP:V and originally the policy page base the name of the article on the common name. So some/many people used to interpret that to mean that common names found using a simple Google search should be the basis for naming articles, for example "Bloody Mary" was to be preferred to "Mary I of England". Some projects such as Flora and introduced into their naming guidelines rules to approximate usage in reliable sources – Another example of such a ruled based guideline was WP:NCROY. In June 2008 thanks to developments in the guideline "Use English" it became clear that what most people actually did was to look in reliable sources as defined by WP:V that was incorporated into naming convention policy. This allowed many of the naming conventions guidelines to be simplified as their rule based instructions to emulate that found in reliable sources was no longer needed. However it took a lot of persuasion to convince some of those who found the rules to be a comfort blanket to change their minds. In this case, Hesperian one the editors who most vehemently opposed the changes to flora at that that time, was eventually won around to the argument (Because of his involvement in WP:NCROY), that the policy of basing things on reliable sources rather than rules should be used: See this edit and the accompanying talk page comment. That edit changed the page from "Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following" to "The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources." which is what I had been proposing all along. I.e. the complaint that KP Botany made "[PBS] has been tagging the policy as 'disputed' based on his unique interpretation of Wikipedia naming policies" in the ANI was proven over time to be a false accusation.

Five (April 2010)

This was a content dispute as to the comment on a Noticeboard it is the first I have seen of it.

Because alterations to the content of the page had previously been contentious, I had made a series of incremental changes (here is the 1st (05:16, 20 May 2010 )) to the page in two tranches and waited over 24 hours for any objections between the first tranche and the second tranche. It was over two weeks later that user:Verbal came along and instead of reverting those parts of the changes (s)he objected to, Verbal chose to revert all of the changes. It seemed to me at the time that this was unreasonable as I had deliberately, made the changes incrementally so that those which were objectionable to someone could be reverted.

In hindsight instead of reverting his/her reverts more than once, what I should have re-done was reimplement the incremental edits I had made before which might have induced Verbal to explain his/her objections instead of trying to get agreement on the talk page to implement that strategy first. In the end I redid the edits incrementally over a period of thee days (here is the 1st one (20 June 201020 June 2010 ) that replicated the edit of 20 May 2010). If I had done instead of fully reverting Verbals full revert the whole process would probably have been less time consuming for everyone. Equally of course Verbal could have short-circuited the whole drama by making an initial partial revert instead of a total revet of half a dozen edits that were over two weeks old.

An interesting point raised in the whole incident is if the technique that Verbal used to get the page locked to his/her preferred version: article revet by Verbal at 10:17, 7 June 2010 Request for page locking at 10:19, 7 June 2010; encourages people to revert quickly so that page protection protects their preferred version.

Six (May 2010)

Chalk and Cheese.

Seven (October 2010)

This is linked to the third example that is mis-dated September 2008 and entitled "Philip here seemed not to respect community consensus over the existence of Targeted killing" -- As I had initiated an RFC on the issue this hardly seems like a fair summary.

I think it best that a little history of the incident is laid out to explain the situation as it was then and what happened.

After a three month discussion from February 2006 (when Tazmaniacs redirected Targeted killing to assassination) up until the 30 September 2010 (a period of close on four year, the page Targeted killing had remained a redirect). Here is the sequence of what happened:

• On 30 September 2010 Epeefleche, boldly created an article in place of a redirect.
• I reverted the edits so that the page became a redirect again with the comment "rv to last version by Sceptre. There is no consensus that this euphemism should be a separate article".
• Epeefleche reverts using two edits with the comments "here is an article by this name " and "there is no reason to delete this article"
• Before I reverted again I initiated an RfC on the page Assassination.
• I then revert the page with the comment "revert to last version by PBS. There is now an RFC. Let that run to see if there is a consensus that a new page should be created".
• Rather than let the RfC run with the page content at its last stable version Epeefleche reverted again this time using Twinkle with the comment "Reverted 1 edit by PBS identified unconstructive to last revision by Epeefleche"
• I reverted again with the same comment.
• at 03:36, 30 September 201003:36, 30 September 2010 Epeefleche Reverted using Twinkle with the same comment as before. But in addition within 4 minutes posted Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see also this diff)

This was a clever playing of the system, Because as I had already reverted 3 times, if I reverted soon after his third revert then I would be in breach of 3RR, so this mean that he had hours in which to get the article protected to his preferred version. We really need to start to protect pages to the last stable version to frustrate this type of gamesmanship, as it tends to encourage multiple reverts rather than stopping them and it undermines the reason for having the 3RR rule.

When the vandalism claim failed Epeefleche opened up an ANI copying across the vandalism claim. As there was a RfC to debate, no who was not a party to the content dispute agreed with him that the edits I had made were vandalism. That being so, my judgement that responding on Epeefleche's talk page to his false accusations of vandalism when we were having a content dispute was likely to exacerbate the situation was probably correct and the RfC that I initiated was the way to go.

In my opinion when the page was protected by Cirt on 30 September (s)he should have reverted to the last stable version --- which was the redirect. But as that did not happen then while the RfC was ongoing there needed to be a banner on the page informing editors that there was an ongoing merge discussion (which is what the RfC automatically became once the redirect was replaced with an article).

One of the curious things about the edits on the 30 September is Cirt's behaviour, in warning me of the 3RR rule but not warning Epeefleche see my talk page and that of Epeefleche. I did not notice it at the time, if I had I would have raised it as a issue on Cirt's talk page.

Here is the link to my talk page about the block Cirt placed on my account and the ANI. Cirt's comment when unblocking the account was a summary of only part of the agreement. See the comment by me on my talk page that starts "for the sake of harmony..." and the comment in the ANI "Frankly, the resulting log entry for the unblock is probably less than the complete vindication that PBS was probably entitled to, but there's not much to be done about that at this point." by Newyorkbrad

When it was clear that the RfC was not going my way (that the article should remain a redirect), I moved on to looking at the content of the article. After Epeefleche and I could not agree on the provision of page numbers in the citations he was giving (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79#Including book page numbers on in-line citations).

This ANI thread was started by Greg L at 18:19, 20 October 2010 in response to the Reliable sources thread that I had started at 22:20 on 18 October, and the Cirt block at 07:19 on 19 October. He redacted his first accusation but refused to then redact the bad faith conclusions he had drawn from his mistaken accusation. With the exception of Epeefleche (at that date the principle editor of the article "Targeted killing" and so allied to Greg L's position) no other editor spoke up in favour of the merits of this ANI thread. SlimVirgin, Tony1 (both parties to another (then recent) dispute with me) and SandyGeorge (who has other issues that relate to one of the incidents listed above) and so were not neutral parties seemed to take the position no smoke without fire while not endorsing the position taken by Greg L and Epeefleche.

Reply to view by Dank

Dank when Parrot of Doom put Hanged, drawn and quartered up for as a FAC he included in his submission that "There's been some dispute and edit warring on this article of late, but not recently. All such arguments seem to have been resolved, and the article is now fairly quiet."

That is notably absent from his RFC for the article Guy Fawkes Night. I am in favour of the FAC process, but not if it is used in such a way that it embeds one persons ownership of an article (a view explicitly stated by two editors on the Gut Fawkes Night about Parrot of Doom's editing style). These issues should be sorted out before such a nomination is accepted.

It is perfectly acceptable for an article not to cover the full scope of a subject, but that should not be so for a featured article. This article is called Guy Fawkes Night not History of Guy Fawkes Night (England). Sources have been provided on the talk page to show that Bonfire Night is an alternative name for Guy Fawkes Night ("Is it anti-Catholic to celebrate Guy Fawkes' Night?" by Guy Walters in the Telegraph on 1 November 2010).

You write "but I can see how an editor might lose count while trying to deal with conflicting expectations of quarrelling FAC reviewers." Well yes, but as I noted above Parrot of Doom has breached 3RR not once but 4 times (three reported and one noted on his talk page) over this article. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde "To breach 3RR once, Mr Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to breach 3RR four times looks like more than carelessness".

I find it interesting that SandyGeorge suggested to Parrot of Doom while he was crafting this RFC that he make certain requests for an outcome including the suggestion of 1RR, while not suggesting that if Parrot of Doom would agree to keep to WP:CIVIL and not to breach WP:3RR, that cordial consensual development of articles in which he shows clear ownership (based on the say so of two other editors, and the ratio of his edits to other editors' edits) would be more likely to happen. Part of any FAC review should also consider carefully if an article where an editor is displaying ownership tendencies --for example is willing breach 3RR to protect his or her version -- should pass an FAC, because FA status is another arrow in the quiver of such an editor (see Wikipedia:OWNERSHIP#Featured articles).

Reply to view by Malleus Fatuorum

I do not try to impose my view against consensus. The two people I informed about the FAC were two who like me think that the article is not complete. I informed them of the FAC because it was not clear that they knew about it. I think that the FAC was premature as stated I stated in the previous section. As far as I am aware the FAC process is not usually an oppositional process (as is for example an AfD or a RM) as presumably everyone wants articles to reach FA status. It can only be adversarial if there is disagreement over the content and scope of an article, in which case it should not be nominated for FAC in the first place.

As for you other comments, I think the tone of your comments on the talk page of this RFC is a typical sample of how you converse with editors with whom you disagree (eg. Tangent). This was something I raised with you in February this year. The only difference between the comments on the RFC talk page and the ones you make usually is that you have not yet explicitly breaching civil as you did here which resulted in me raising an ANI over the issue.

It seems to me that you support this RFC because I did not rise to your bating on the article talk pages and this RfC is another mechanism you can use, not for the good of the project, but for your own personal gratification.

You write "He should also be encouraged to spend his time on the project more productively and less obsessively". Since I made my comment on the talk page of the Guy Fawkes Night at 5:02 on 22 March 2011 I have made 554 edits to articles of which 36 were edits to the article Guy Fawkes Night. That is about 6% of all my article edits were to the article Guy Fawkes Night. This is not obsessive behaviour.

One of those edits was to an article called Murder Act 1751 to my surprise the format of the article had been changed to that which you prefer with this edit, checking other articles that you have edited, it seems that you have made similar changes to many other articles, so your comment "He has been edit warring over what he calls the 'standard appendix'" is self-serving, as it is I who am suggesting that the format should remain that which is commonly used. I therefore think MF that if you wish to systematically change the format to one you prefer, you should propose it as an alternative on the talk page of the layout guideline.

Reply to view by Greg L

Greg L writes "I don’t think I have ever seen a user’s talk page, where the user has no autosignature; which is to say, the user him- or herself seldom (if ever) responds to inquiries from others on his own user talk page." That is because I usually reply on the user page of the person who has left me a message, or sometime I bundle up the question and reply on an relevant article talk page. Very occasionally I do not reply to a message posted on my talk page but that is either done because in my judgement replying would exacerbate a situation, but that is unusual.

A look at my user page contributions shows that I have made 500 user page edits since last August. In the same time there have been about 300 edits to my user page. So I think the conclusion you draw that "He apparently perceives little need to actually engage others." is just not true.

Reply to view by SandyGeorge

SG in the past I have considered your comments to be balanced even when I disagreed with them, however I was disappointed to see that you actively assisted PoD with this RfC while still purporting to be an uninvolved on the FAC for Guy Fawkes Night.

You make several sweeping statements: eg "When he focuses on an issue, he is single-mindedly intransigent", which implies that is all way true, but it depends on the issue and the arguments advanced:

• Take for example one where SlimVirgin and I have disagreed. My preferred solution for the placement of footnotes in articles was to have a Wikipedia specific solution, however as that attracted little traction, so I supported a compromise that would provide with a general recommendation, but that would allow different methods providing that articles were internally consistent. There has been a long debate on this issue, and I do not think that my contribution to the last debate can be said to be intransigent.
• Another example is the unreferenced template: See one, two, thee

"Because he's generally polite" -- Do you have any examples where I have not been polite? "In short, he doesn't collaborate" -- I often do collaborate, How many examples would you like to have me produce to disprove that statement?

I do sometimes argue my case strongly it depended on what it is, but unlike PoD who started this RfC, I am never rude to people and I do not breach the 3RR rule to force my point of view on anyone, something PoD has done repeatedly with the Guy Fawkes Night article. I think implicit support of his behaviour discredits the FAC process.

Reply to view by Epeefleche

See the comments in the Reply to SlimVirgin section.

Reply to SlimVirgin

I have told SlimVirgin before that her accusations about my talk page actions and edits is very much the pot calling the kettle black, and I find her endorsement of this RfC hypocritical. If necessary I can list several other example, of where she has been very tenacious in her editing style, but one clear example of this was her attempt to keep attribution as part of Wikipdia policies and guidelines, long after the poll which returned no consensus on the issue. Personally I was not against the merger, but I was against the way it was done (so I did not express an opinion in the poll). I was and remain against trying to introduce the page without a clear mandate to do so, and I see the banner issue on that "essay" (or whatever one wants to call it) as important in helping to reduce apparent contradictory advise given in policies and guidelines. Indeed many of the arguments I have over policies and guidelines fall into the category of trying to harmonise different contradictory advise in the plethora of polices and guidelines that we have as that tends to reduce the length of disputes on article talk pages.

As to the specific accusations of misuse of administrator functions:

Bosnian Genocide. With this reversal and this attached comment "Each and every sentence has been discussed thoroughly in this article. The two most recent paragraphs are currently under intense discussions. It is simply unacceptable for an editor to make huge changes without discussion.", Fairview360 reverted the removal of data from the Bosnian Genocide article. In making that edit Fairview360 caused the new page to be a content fork. The protection I placed on the page was a temporary protection of two weeks, to give time for a discussion to take place to see if there was a consensus for moving information out into another article, and what that article should be called. I do not think that this was an inappropriate use of administrative functions.

As for the blocks on that page. The first one was to stop an edit war. I was careful to protect the page on a version of the page that was put there by a editor, with whom I had a content disagreement, on the talk page. I am sure that if at the time he had thought I was behaving inappropriately he would have complained at an ANI (it turned out that that editor was running two socks that edited in tandem on the article Bosnian Genocide and its talk page).

The other three were in fact two (one changed was an immediate change of protection) and both done for obvious protection against vandalism.

The Cavalier article. Between November 21 2010 and the time I protected the page, all the edits for over a several months had been vandalism or reversion of vandalism. This becomes a problem because if an article is not being regularity edited, it only takes one missed vandalism edit to be missed and it tends to remain in the article. Take for example this edit from the same article first edit by 24.34.145.104, second edit by the same IP, second edit reverted by MonoAV, which means that the first edit remain in the article. Before I protected the article on 4 January, I fixed just such an example of vandalism first edit by 99.254.151.19, second edit, second edit reverted by 74.192.47.208, which had been in the article for 10 days. I would not criticise any administrator for making such a protection call.

As for the two templates. The first mentioned {{1911}} is included in more than 10,000 articles. An edit to that template therefore affects more than 10,000 articles. A change to the content of the template does not show up in the edit history of those 10,000 articles, so unless people are monitoring for changes to the template, such changes can remain in place on >10,000 for a significant length of time. In fact I think that partial protection, so that all editors with a history of editing can edit such a template, is more appropriate and the exchange on the talk page of {{1911}} shows that when a responsible editor asked for a change to be made to the template, I realised that in my opinion the protection level was wrong and changed it so that responsible editors could edit it. The protection on {{Cite EB1911}} was mealy a repetition ofthe previous protection level, as {{1911}} now includes {{Cite EB1911}} so that {{Cite EB1911}} is now embedded in about 15,000 articles. It would have been irresponsible for me to have subdivided the functionality of {{1911}} between two templates and not have protected the new template against vandalism as it is embedded in about 15,000 articles.

Accusations of plagiarism when editing articles

One frequent refrain by Malleus Fatuorum ("MF") is that administrators administrate and do not write articles. This is a false dichotomy as the range of things that administrators do vary. Some almost exclusivity carry out administrative tasks, some almost exclusively edit articles, some edit and discuss areas other than article space such as Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also what administrators do, like that other editors, can vary considerably over time.

MF frequently states that administrators stick together, yet it is clear just from this RFC that view and opinions of administrators frequently diverge and making such accusations does him no credit.

One of the things he has stated over several talk pages is that I should get experience in writing articles. But a look at my edit history shows that over half of my edits (35,000) have been to articles. I sometimes follow red links and create articles in areas that interest me, or expand articles that I think are underdeveloped. I would like to highlight one such fairly recent creations that shows some relevant points. The dab page Samuel Browne it contains three articles created by me:

• Samuel Browne (divine) (1575?–1632), English minister of religion
• Samuel Browne (judge) (d. 1668), English lawyer, MP for Clifton, knight
• Samuel Browne (MP for Rutland) (c.1634–1691) nephew of Samuel Browne (d. 1668), English militia commissioner and MP for Rutland

The divine article is a small stub with appropriate PD attribution. The judge article has both text which is a summary of copyright articles and some text copied from PD sources with appropriate PD attribution, while the MP for Rutland is a standard article that summarise the source used. I originally decided to write the Samuel Browne (judge) because it was the only red link left in the article Committee of Both Kingdoms. This threw up an anomaly for the MP for Rutland hence the article on Samuel Browne (MP for Rutland), and the stub Samuel Browne (divine) was created because in researching the judge it seemed best to create a small stub for another man who lived at about the same time and is notable enough to be in the [Oxford] Dictionary of National Biography.

This leads to the question of whether copying the text of PD and appropriately licensed copyleft sources into Wikipeida articles is or is not plagiarism. Since the early days of Wikipedia PD sources have been copied (notably articles from the EB1911). It was decided by the editors of the plagiarism guideline that providing PD sources are cited using inline citations with appropriate attribution either in the citation or in the References section then it is not plagiarism.

This is the consensus view for the many 10,000 of articles that contain PD and copy left sources. Unfortunately many of the older articles have yet to be fully fitted with appropriate citations and attribution. Doing so is a very big task, see for example my edits on 14 April 2011 to the article Patriarch Euphemius of Constantinople. It is one I did not write, but is one that uses an amalgamation of two PD sources. In such cases checking and retrofitting citations takes a considerable length of time.

I think that the best explanation of why it is morally OK to copy the text of copyright expired sources into Wikiepedia with appropriate attribution was given by Arch dude in January 2010. As I see it, we are here to build a freely accessible factually accurate encyclopaedia, and if we can use adequately attributed PD and suitably licensed copyleft text from reliable sources to help achieve this, then there is no reason why we should not. Once in place the text can then be edited in the normal Wikipedia fashion to improve it.

--PBS (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Dank

A contentious and even brutal environment at FAC has a chilling effect that goes past that particular article and those particular editors. PBS and others made a lot of reversions to Guy Fawkes Night while it was at FAC, and then PBS reported Parrot of Doom to be blocked for violations of the the three-revert rule. Of course, FAC nominators are subject to the letter and spirit of 3RR as much as anyone, but I can see how an editor might lose count while trying to deal with conflicting expectations of quarreling FAC reviewers. The last thing we need at FAC is stories circulating about nominators getting blocked when reviewers didn't get their way.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
3. --Cirt (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
4. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
5. --Skinny87 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
6. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
7. --207.157.121.52 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
8. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Richerman (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
11. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
12. -- Parrot of Doom 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Gnangarra 13:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Well indeed. Tony (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
15. PoD may indeed have violated 3RR, but that doesn't excuse PBS's behavior. "You can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior". — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Commenting on the general rather than the specific, PBS's type of behavior is disruptive. Entering a valid oppose, based on WP:WIAFA, is the way to proceed at FAC. Instead, he canvassed and ranted about non-actionable items on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
20. --John (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
21. --LK (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
22. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Charles Matthews

This is basically a content dispute that is being pursued by "other means" (means other than discussion on the Talk page, that is). It is common ground that Parrot of Doom is a good editor, and should in general be encouraged to research and write articles here to a high standard that has been demonstrated in the past. The point at issue is whether the "community" view of the right direction for the content of an article, selected for attention by an editor with a reputation of this kind, is thereby in any way devalued. On the basis of the assumption of good faith of all involved, it should not be.

The conduct summary of PBS amounts to an assumption of bad faith, reaching back over time. PoD has not responded well to gentle reminders that editors here do not operate in a vacuum. There are clearly some faults on both sides, given that 3RR and WP:OWN are fundamental policy, and the matter is suitable for mediation.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
3. MacStep (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
4. As in most disputes, there are two sides to it. PoD needs to take more notice when people have an issue with him. --John (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Malleus Fatuorum

User:PBS has a long-term history of belligerency in trying to impose his way against consensus on a number of articles, most recently Guy Fawkes Night, where he additionally attempted to disrupt the article's FA nomination, including by canvassing those he felt would be sympathetic to his efforts. He is completely impervious to either common senses or consensus, fuelled by an inner conviction that he is the one and only bearer of "truth", even to the extent of deliberately misinterpreting policies and guidelines when he finds it convenient. He has been edit warring over what he calls the "standard appendix" for months now, most recently here. PBS needs a sharp reminder that just because he thinks something is so does not make it so. He should also be encouraged to spend his time on the project more productively and less obsessively.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Malleus Fatuorum 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
2. --Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

   --OpinionsAreLikeAHoles (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC) See comment above at 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC). Ncmvocalist (talk)

4. --J3Mrs (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
5. --Kittybrewster ☎ 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
6. --Skinny87 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
7. --207.157.121.52 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS)
8. BigDom 21:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Richerman (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Bishonen | talk 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC). Agree that this is a long time behavioral problem.
11. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
12. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Hard to disagree, I've spent nearly a week (since I saw this issue come up) digging - on and off - into Phillip's edits and this is as good a summary of his approach as we will get --Errant ^(chat!) 21:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
15. --Parrot of Doom 18:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Ray^Talk 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
17. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Gnangarra 13:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
19. Jusdafax 10:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
20. People are tiring of PBS's behaviour. Something needs to be done. Tony (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
21. Geez, 22 people? It's about time something is done about this. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
22. Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
23. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
24. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
25. There is a long record behind this, and an unwillingness to accept the behavioural trend. Ceoil 20:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
26. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
27. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
28. Apart from the last sentence; users are volunteers and may therefore participate how and where they wish. Endorsing the substance of the complaint. --John (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
29. Eisfbnore ^talk 20:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
30. you gotta listen to the consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
31. per John. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
32.  GFHandel.   20:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
33. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Greg L

I don’t think I have ever seen a user’s talk page, where the user has no autosignature; which is to say, the user him- or herself seldom (if ever) responds to inquiries from others on his own user talk page. Being rather shocked at the sight of that, I looked at the history of his talk page. I was momentarily encouraged to see he had done a couple of edits there. But upon inspection, the only two edits on the first page of the history were to link subject matter such as this ∆ edit and this ∆ edit too. He apparently perceives little need to actually engage others. Having grown hard-earned gray hairs in my beard, I am sufficiently wise about people (and Wikipedia) to see that Philip is A) insular, and B) effectively immune to social pressure. That is not something the community needs in an admin. I can only assume he got his sysop powers years ago when the process was pretty much a matter of giving the secret knock on the clubhouse door.

Unfortunately, given that the English-language version of Wikipedia is unique among all the others in that admins serve for life (like U.S. Federal judges), there is little that will become of this unless comments left here clue him that the community feels his continued participation on the project is unwelcome if he continues as he has been. And—regardless—it would be best if he voluntarily relinquished his sysop privileges and powers.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Greg L (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Malleus Fatuorum 01:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
4. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
5. -- Cirt (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
6. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
7. --Skinny87 (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Richerman (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
10. Ray^Talk 18:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Jusdafax 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Needs six to 12 months' break from adminship to reflect on his responsibilities to the community. Tony (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
14. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Ceoil 22:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
18. --LK (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
19. -- Bearian (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Moonraker2

For some months there has been a division of opinion at the Guy Fawkes Night article, essentially between those supporting Parrot of Doom's view that this is an historical topic with a "trivial" contemporary aspect and those supporting PBS's view that it is a contemporary topic with a significant history. These two views entail very different ambitions for the article, which has inevitably meant conflict. The group of editors sharing Parrot of Doom's vision appear to "stick together" on all matters and are in the majority, partly because they have been aggressive in their preservation of their position and have set out to drive those disagreeing with them away from the page by the use of name-calling and ad hominem attacks. Under this heading, Parrot of Doom is far from being the worst offender.

PBS is, indeed, a determined exponent of his views, but unlike some others on the Guy Fawkes Night page he is unfailingly calm, courteous and rational. If there is a "needle" between PBS and Parrot of Doom, which has led to each mounting formal complaints against the other, that is not very surprising in all the circumstances. The case Parrot of Doom presents on this page calls for several hours of work to respond to it and to represent a full version of the truth. PBS should be encouraged to spare the time to make a full reply to the request for comment, which of course he is not obliged to do.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
2. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC) - excellent summary.
3. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
4. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
5. Courtesy good, silence bad. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
6. MacStep (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Can't vouch for "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational", but this largely seems to be a case of "we strongly disagree with you therefore your behavior is disgraceful". For instance, this diff inserted a few citation needed tags, which may or may not have been appropriate, but to claim massive overuse of tags seems exaggerated. You should really see what some other editors are capable of, e.g. . Tijfo098 (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
8. Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note - question/response to this view has been made here.

Outside view by SandyGeorgia

Other than being aware of PBS's canvassing on the Guy Fawkes' FAC, and his non-actionable disruptive commentary entered there, I am not commenting on the Guy Fawkes' issue (per FAC COI). I will note that this situation appears typical of the behavior I have encountered whenever I have had to edit around him, particularly on the MOS pages. When he focuses on an issue, he is single-mindedly intransigent and perseverative, regardless of how many others disagree with him, and he will edit war to instate his personal preferences. Because he's generally polite, and because he's an admin, he apparently isn't blocked when he edit wars or refuses to use talk pages appropriately or recognize consensus. He is one of those folks who make editing miserable for anyone else, since he persists, and edit wars, to instate his opinions no matter how many others disagree with him, to the point that I gave up following any MOS page where he participates. His response to this RFC is typical of his single-minded intransigence and the way he uses article and MOS talk pages-- he has ignored the issue, and challenged the legitimacy of a perfectly reasonable RFC. His response to almost a couple dozen editors who have problems with his behavior, and almost no one supporting his behaviors, is to declare the RFC invalid rather than address the behaviors. In short, he doesn't collaborate-- he obfuscates, perseverates, edit wars, and seems oblivious to the greater world around him or the effect his editing has on others.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

   Noting that similar MOS and edit warring issues were raised in his 2006 RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

2. The large number of editors (22 already) agreeing that he engages in this behavior, directly violative of wp:admin, raises a question as to whether the corrective action sought is sufficient.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
5. "single-mindedly intransigent and perseverative, regardless of how many others disagree with him, and he will edit war to instate his personal preferences. Because he's generally polite, and because he's an admin, he apparently isn't blocked when he edit wars or refuses to use talk pages appropriately or recognize consensus." Spot-on, Sandy. When Jimbo pushes through a system of three-year admin reconfirmations, PBS will find it a struggle to pass. Tony (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
6. I completely agree with the last few sentences. PBS needs to post his side of the story, so a proper debate can be had, leading to a resolution. Hiding away achieves nothing. Parrot of Doom 15:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
7. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
8. --J3Mrs (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
10. -- Cirt (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
11. Sums up the problem nicely. Richerman (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
12. Gnangarra 12:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
13. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
14. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
15. Agree and continue to feel this is a classic case study of an admin who sets a terrible example and should have had his mop removed before this, for starters. Refusal by PBS to comment at this Rfc should be taken as further confirmation of inability to accept or even tolerate community concerns. Jusdafax 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
16. Quigley (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
17. Skinny87 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
18. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
19. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Epeefleche

PBS should be sanctioned or have his access removed, because of his above-detailed behavior.

WP:ADMIN states that an admin who repeatedly acts in a problematic manner, or has lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have his access removed. PBS has done both. As WP:ADMIN notes, admin access has been removed or suggested for any one of the following: an admin’s failure to respond to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought—as in this RFC), repeated poor judgment, gross breach of trust, and edit warring. (Note: abuse of admin tools is not a requirement.)

Per WP:RFC: “While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by ... assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.”

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
2. --Kittybrewster ☎ 19:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
3. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Makes sense to me. Tony (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
5. -- Jusdafax 08:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
6. -- Bearian (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
7. — Eisfbnore ^talk 18:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Endorse and support removal of admin access.  GFHandel.   19:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Based on the rambling response he posted to this RfC today. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
10. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment by SlimVirgin

• PBS (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Overall tool use (see here): since June 2006, 545 deletions, 99 undeletions, 115 protections, 19 unprotections, 25 blocks, 24 unblocks

This isn't an outside view, because I certified the RfC, but some additional information. It seems from a brief glance through the logs that Philip has recently used the tools on pages he's been editing. I've only glanced at the logs because going through them would be a lot of work, so it's possible there aren't many examples of this. Here are some I noticed:

• Bosnian genocide

• His edits: 262 edits, 19 April 2007 – 8 April 2011
• Tool use: On 31 March 2011, Philip speedy deleted International response to the Bosnian Genocide as a fork of Bosnian genocide. He deleted it under A10 with the summary: "This is a content fork of Bosnian Genocide, no previous discussion of this fork on talk:Bosnian Genocide. Edits that removed this content from BG reverted." Then he protected it against recreation. Discussion about it here with the article creator, where Philip says the creator must first gain consensus on Talk:Bosnian Genocide. It's unlikely that an uninvolved admin would have done this.

  He has also protected Bosnian genocide four times: full protection January 2008; semi-protection for one month in March 2009; and semi-protection for three months in May 2009.

• Cavalier

• His edits: 92 edits, 30 September 2004 – 15 March 2011
• Tool use: He has protected it four times since 2007, most recently semi-protected for six months on 4 January 2011. An uninvolved admin at RfPP would almost certainly not have semi-protected this, because there was little vandalism around the time of protection.

• Template:1911

• His edits: 18 edits, 25 August 2010 – 30 April 2011
• Tool use: He added indefinite full protection on 18 September 2010, and indefinite semi-protection on 25 March 2011.

• Template:Cite EB1911

• His edits: Nine edits, 20 March 2011 – 31 March 2011
• Tool use: He added full protection on 20 March 2011, then started editing it himself.

Whatever else comes of this RfC, Philip should refrain from using the tools in relation to articles he's currently editing, or has edited a lot in the past.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
2. The bar for WP:INVOLVED is deliberately set low in the policy; but these transgressions are not slight—they are flagrant, and show that PBS needs to take a good break from the tools and interact productively with an official mentor who can guide him towards attitudes and behaviour that comes up to community expectations, both as an editor and an admin. Tony (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
3. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
4. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
5. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
6. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
7. Jusdafax 04:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
8. WikiCopter 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
9. Perhaps looking at the misuse of the bit in the provided edits Philip would return to the community to seek reaffirmation of support for his ongoing adminship. Off2riorob (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Strongly agree. This abuse of admin tools is unacceptable. LK (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Troubling. I waited to see if PBS had any adequate explanations, but in the absence of them I agree with this.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
12. At a very minimum, he needs to be made to copy out the entire contents of WP:ADMIN and WP:DISRUPT one hundred times by hand. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Septentrionalis

As best I can make out, this is a tempest in a tea-pot. Parrot of Doom attempted, at the same time, to conduct a FA candidature and a content dispute with a reviewer, which Parrot of Doom, as well as PBS, has conducted as a revert-war. He now comes here to complain about the results.

Several of our most notable WikiLawyers have joined in complaining that PBS wikilawyers. Well, he does; and so do they. I regret that some editors I respect have gotten caught up in this mess.

The effect of this, if any, will be to make substantive criticism of FA candidates yet more difficult. It is too rare now - because it requires that the reviewer know something about the subject of the article, and that is chiefly responsible for the long string of public embarrassments which have appeared on the Main Page. Now we add a private embarrassment. This has been a predictable effect of permitting FAC to be run by an appointative despotism; but I don't suppose that will change any time soon; the feeling of power in honoring one's own clique is too attractive.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse as commenter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Moonraker (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
3. --87.79.228.163 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposal 1

To resolve this dispute, Philip is asked:

• to avoid disrupting the featured-content process, and in case of dispute to accept as binding the guidance of the FA delegates;
• not to use the tools on pages he has recently or regularly edited, or where he might reasonably be said to be involved;
• to adopt a strategy of minimizing conflict between himself and other editors on article, policy, and style-guide talk pages;
• to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming unclear or repetitive;
• to consider taking a voluntary break from adminship for six months to concentrate on his editing skills and relationships with other editors;
• to consider engaging with a neutral mentor for at least six months.

Users who endorse this proposed solution