| Revision as of 12:42, 22 March 2013 editNikkimaria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users231,515 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:12, 22 March 2013 edit undoFolantin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,187 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| 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) | :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) | ||
| ::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. --] (]) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:12, 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)
- 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)