| Revision as of 18:09, 22 March 2013 editFolantin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,187 edits QED← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 12:21, 27 March 2013 edit undoFolantin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,187 editsNo edit summary | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| QED. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | QED. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :Yeah. 1 one-year Arbcom ban + 1 one-year Arbcom ban = troll. QED. --] (]) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | :Yeah. 1 one-year Arbcom ban + 1 one-year Arbcom ban + banned from FA of the day = troll. QED. --] (]) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::The main concern is not the actual box but the amount of new editors that get bitten over this. We have had countless new editors inquire at the various help desk(s) as to why they cant edit theses pages without asking permission from the project first. Reverting editions multiple times with edit summaries that say nothing but link to ] are confusing to new editors and gives the impression there edits are not welcomed. A proper essay that is inline with the community policy, that is not contradictory and does not tell editors they must seek consensus from the project before editing a particular article may help avoid so many conflicts. Hard to recruit new editors to any project if there first encounter is a negative one. ] (]) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Could you give three or four examples of these "countless" new editors who have been bitten? I searched the archives of the regular help desk, the new editors' help desk, and ] and couldn't find anything. ] (]) 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Looks like those "countless editors" are purely rhetorical. Maybe they can't be counted because they don't exist.--] (]) 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The Visual arts project stands shoulder to shoulder with the music project on infoboxes (in most cases of its own articles, not project-wide of course), indeed that is where the front line tends to be nowadays. ] (]) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :That's sweet, but as the RfC referred to above made clear, carries no more weight than any other arbitrary bunch of editors expressing their shared personal opinions. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 11:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:21, 27 March 2013
← Back to WikiProject report
Discuss this story
The RfC linked to above, called for by members of WikiProject Composers, concluded that:
WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.
Infoboxes are not to be added nor removed systematically from articles. Such actions would be considered disruptive.
Yet members of the project, including some interviewed above, persist in removing infoboxes from articles about composers on sight, and without debate, giving WP:COMPOSERS as a justification. We thus have a small number of editors, operating as a team, to override wider community consensus. Their response to this being pointed out often comprises ad hominem attacks; and article talk page debates are often the subject of their partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- We also have a small number of editors, operating as a team, who persist on adding infoboxes to articles on sight, and without debate, overriding wider consensus. They (or, rather, one of them in particular) exhibit a lack of courtesy and communication skill in debates. What's your point? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's an infobox tag-team of about half a dozen users who think they represent the "community". Mabbett's a notorious troll. He's been banned twice, each time for a year, by ArbCom. Ironically, I've been told it was only the limitations of the computer software which meant that his second ban wasn't permanent. Now we have to put up with his obnoxious POV-pushing again and again all over Misplaced Pages. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's an infobox tag-team of about half a dozen users who think they represent the "community". Mabbett's a notorious troll. He's been banned twice, each time for a year, by ArbCom. Ironically, I've been told it was only the limitations of the computer software which meant that his second ban wasn't permanent. Now we have to put up with his obnoxious POV-pushing again and again all over Misplaced Pages. --Folantin (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. 1 one-year Arbcom ban + 1 one-year Arbcom ban + banned from FA of the day = troll. QED. --Folantin (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- The main concern is not the actual box but the amount of new editors that get bitten over this. We have had countless new editors inquire at the various help desk(s) as to why they cant edit theses pages without asking permission from the project first. Reverting editions multiple times with edit summaries that say nothing but link to WP:COMPOSERS are confusing to new editors and gives the impression there edits are not welcomed. A proper essay that is inline with the community policy, that is not contradictory and does not tell editors they must seek consensus from the project before editing a particular article may help avoid so many conflicts. Hard to recruit new editors to any project if there first encounter is a negative one. Moxy (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you give three or four examples of these "countless" new editors who have been bitten? I searched the archives of the regular help desk, the new editors' help desk, and the Teahouse and couldn't find anything. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like those "countless editors" are purely rhetorical. Maybe they can't be counted because they don't exist.--Folantin (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- Could you give three or four examples of these "countless" new editors who have been bitten? I searched the archives of the regular help desk, the new editors' help desk, and the Teahouse and couldn't find anything. Voceditenore (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- The main concern is not the actual box but the amount of new editors that get bitten over this. We have had countless new editors inquire at the various help desk(s) as to why they cant edit theses pages without asking permission from the project first. Reverting editions multiple times with edit summaries that say nothing but link to WP:COMPOSERS are confusing to new editors and gives the impression there edits are not welcomed. A proper essay that is inline with the community policy, that is not contradictory and does not tell editors they must seek consensus from the project before editing a particular article may help avoid so many conflicts. Hard to recruit new editors to any project if there first encounter is a negative one. Moxy (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Visual arts project stands shoulder to shoulder with the music project on infoboxes (in most cases of its own articles, not project-wide of course), indeed that is where the front line tends to be nowadays. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's sweet, but as the RfC referred to above made clear, carries no more weight than any other arbitrary bunch of editors expressing their shared personal opinions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)