Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:03, 15 December 2010

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

• Colonel Warden (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has displayed a pattern of behavior whereby he repeatedly tries to delete and/or marginalize legitimate cleanup tags on articles without actually fixing the problem to which the cleanup tag refers. This is just one part of a larger pattern of Colonel Warden's disruptive behavior with regard to the deletion process on Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (article message boxes) (also codified at WP:TC)
2. Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing
3. Misplaced Pages:Edit warring
4. Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system
5. Misplaced Pages: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  00:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
2. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC) (dispute: edit summary explicitly acknowledging removal of tags; attempted resolution: warning ; 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_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_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 16:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Questions

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

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

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

Q.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  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 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_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  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_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_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. (Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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_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  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 Misplaced Pages post a general disclaimer in lieu of cleanup tags? Something akin to "Disclaimer: Some Misplaced Pages 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  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  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_Stalk(P) 15:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed.  Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

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  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?

A.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by Dream Focus

• The first one he removed the reference tag which had been there for two years, no one paying any attention to it, so it rather pointless. Also, why would you need a reference for that? It mentions the songbook its in, linking to that article, and surely you can confirm the information presented in the one sentence of that article through that. 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 • 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
4. The minor events from last month seem to have stopped. This has become a non-issue. Schmidt, 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. So what did CW do this time? Reference a Nazi tactic? Move an article during an AFD and put a three-line stub in place of the redirect? No. He.....removed a few tags, apparently. This is not a basis for RFC/U. ----Divebomb is not British 18:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
8. agree that the issue raised does not warrant drastic action. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
9. 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)
10. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
11. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
12. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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  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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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, 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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_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 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 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  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 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 _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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Inka 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
8. --Cyclopia 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, 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)

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.