Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/AndyL

(from AndyL's response): There is no policy requiring one to protect the latest version of an article. Since the majority were not engaging in discussion on the Matrix talk page but were simply enforcing their view I felt it necessary to protect the minority page in order to ensure a discussion. In any case, removing an external link without because it is contrary to the editor's POV is questionable.


 * The link was never removed because it was contrary to the POV of any editor. It was removed because it was considered not notable in the context of the article. It was also removed because it was added to further the POV of the editor who added it. Furthermore, I would interpret the protection policy as prohibiting an admin from reverting a page to his preferred version before or after placing the page under protection. &mdash; Phil Welch 22:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In response to AndyL's "protest" of removing his response on the grounds that Curps wrote an addendum to the section of the complaint applying to him:
 * Please show me a precedent where it's been done on an RfC and rejected. The fact that it's a wiki implies that it should be editable. As for certification, users only have to certify the *basis* for the dispute, not the specific wording.


 * Furthermore, Curps' edits were a clearly marked addendum. You yourself made an addendum to your response, how can you deny Curps' right to make an addendum to the portion of the RfC that applies to him? &mdash; Phil Welch 20:36, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Phil responds without giving a precedent but simply implies that there should be one (after all, this is a wiki and it's technically possible to edit things). Yes, it is technically possible, the point is whether or not such behaviour is seen as valid. Phil assumes it is. If this is the case it shouldn't be a problem for him to produce a precedent. He can't however because, it seems, rewriting an RFC after its been certified is not accepted practice. AndyL 22:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You yourself made the precedent when you placed an addendum on your response. &mdash; Phil Welch 22:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this is an attempt by a group of editors to exclude film reviews because they disagree with the politics of the group from which the reviews are linked. This makes no sense to me. I think AndyL has acted properly. --Cberlet 15:55, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There are loosely organized lobbies that seeks to use Wikipedia to further their political agendas. Opposition to this isn't censorship of the views furthered, but rather prevention of the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for the promotion of such ideas. I hasten to add that this is tangential to the issue raised in the RfC. &mdash; Phil Welch 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for such a civil response. It's instructive. I do not think what I wrote is either "nonsense" or "tangential;" I think it goes to the root of this contretemps.--Cberlet 16:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's civil to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of bias, but it isn't civil to dismiss such an accusation as nonsense? Regardless, the editing dispute that took place regarding the Maoist movie review is *not the issue* raised in this RfC. AndyL's use of his administrative powers *in* that dispute is the issue raised. I have to admit, if I was going to twist Wikipedia into a propaganda vehicle for my own purposes, I would scarcely do anything different from what you and others are doing now. &mdash; Phil Welch 21:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

"You yourself made the precedent when you placed an addendum on your response."

How can that be when my addendum was a response to initial changes you'd made after the RFC had been certified? And elsewhere Curps says that *I* initiated the RFC process when it was you! Do the two of you deliberately make things up or do you just have memory reserves made of swiss cheese?AndyL 02:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind and civil response. &mdash; Phil Welch 02:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)