| Revision as of 12:39, 22 March 2013 editPigsonthewing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors266,073 edits An "uppity" project? | Revision as of 12:42, 22 March 2013 edit undoNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users231,509 edits reNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Yet members of the project, including some interviewed above, persist in removing infoboxes from articles about composers on sight, and without debate, giving ] 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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 12:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | Yet members of the project, including some interviewed above, persist in removing infoboxes from articles about composers on sight, and without debate, giving ] 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. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); ]; ]</span> 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? ] (]) 12:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:42, 22 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)