Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/PBS

Question about Moonraker's comment
Can both Moonraker2 and Parrot of Doom address Moonraker's assertion that this is a conflict between two editors' views of what belongs in the Guy Fawkes Night article? This is a weak foundation for an argument, and particularly this one. The primary influence regarding what goes in an article should not be from individual editors, but what sources state. If both editors are approaching this issue from this perspective, urging the bits of what they want in the article to stay despite how sources treat contemporary observations of this event, there is a significant disconnect between how editors are behaving and how the article should be constructed. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well the RFC is mostly about PBS's long-term behaviour and uses the debacle at Guy Fawkes Night only to illustrate. Hopefully other editors who've had similar battles can post their more informed experiences here.


 * The first occasion on which I encountered PBS was at Hanged, drawn and quartered, but his tendentious editing on GFN was the straw that broke the camel's back. When I had a look around Wikipedia to see what I could find out about him, I was intrigued to see so many familiar editors had urged him to change his ways, and annoyed that he apparently hasn't.  This is why I started the RFC; if PBS doesn't heed the comments of experienced editors on this page, if necessary, steps can be taken to ensure that if he wants to contribute to Wikipedia, he is compelled to comply.


 * Guy Fawkes Night uses two main sources, David Cressy's excellent "The Fifth of November Remembered" (quoted by numerous other sources) and James Sharpe's Remember, remember: a cultural history of Guy Fawkes Day, at 200 pages of prose the most comprehensive and detailed study I've yet found. Ronald Hutton's book is also worth studying, and is also used.  Cressy's approximately 20-page work goes right from 1605 to the end of the 20th century, but the vast majority details the religious and social aspects of the day.  Only a single paragraph covers the late 20th century celebrations, and much of that is to do with health and safety, and fireworks.  Elsewhere a minor mention is given to the burning of effigies of Margaret Thatcher, John Major et al.  Sharpe spends pages 175-185 discussing the celebrations as they were held in 2004, but this mostly details health and safety legislation, the nuisance of fireworks, the danger to society of things getting out of hand, and the impact on pets.  I'm not sure that this wouldn't be changing the focus of the article from Guy Fawkes Night to Health and Safety culture, and so I've summarised it with Cressy's quote on the day's decline, and David Cannadine's quote on Halloween, which says much the same thing, but more eloquently than I could.  So far I haven't seen any expert sources which give an equal weighting to the modern celebration and its history, and I haven't seen anyone else attempt to present them, either.  Neither source pays foreign celebrations much attention, apart from Pope Day.  But as I've implied above, I would rather this discussion take place at Talk:Guy Fawkes Night. Parrot of Doom 12:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker 2 is getting away from the point of the RfC. Generally those that "support PoD" have disagreed with the way PBS has gone about imposing changes to the article rather than "supporting PoDs vision" for it. I, for one, would be quite happy to see more about present day celebrations providing the information is backed up by good quality sources but I wouldn't want to see the article go back to the mess that it was before PoD decided to rewrite it. However, this is not a discussion that's relevant to this RfC. Richerman (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That sums it up nicely for me too. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, PoD, that's half of what I wanted to see. I'd like Moonraker2 to weigh in here to assert that he and PBS have accessed comprehensive sources and they mention the info about 20th century observations. If PBS et al are approaching editing Guy Fawkes Night with the view that Wikipedia's editors should determine what goes into an article more than what the best and most comprehensive sources have to say about more recent issues, and this is what I assume is going on, then this is a conflict reflected by the changes Wikipedia has gone through from the idealist 2000-2005 version of Wikipedia to the more cynical and realistic one that puts reliability and verifiability (with appropriate emphasis on weight) at a much higher priority than what individual editors can bring.


 * So if this is the case, then of course editors who understand that articles should be constructed using the most comprehensive sources will have a common notion about what should be in an article. And editors who do not agree with or understand this shift come into conflict with the changes Wikipedia has gone through. This seems like an obvious and simple explanation why there are two solid camps and has little to do with any cabal. --Moni3 (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment by, a most astute analysis of the situation. -- Cirt (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're right Moni3. Just look at who is in each camp, and think about what they have in common. There's no club here, just light against darkness. Malleus Fatuorum 21:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I can promise anyone reading here that I have tried very hard to satisfy the requests for more information on the modern celebration, and its observation in other countries. If I'd found anything of note, it would be in the article.  Others are welcome to try, I'm not bad at searching for these things but I can't say I know every avenue to explore. Parrot of Doom 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While this is an interesting question, it does not seem to me to be at the heart of the present request for comment, which is about Parrot of Doom's criticisms of PBS, and not really about who is right or wrong in the division of opinion at the Guy Fawkes Night article mentioned in my summary. As Parrot of Doom says above, "the RFC is mostly about PBS's long-term behaviour and uses the debacle at Guy Fawkes Night only to illustrate". The background I gave in my summary was more for context than anything else, and I made it clear that a full response would call for a substantial piece of work. Moni3 asks "I'd like Moonraker2 to weigh in here to assert that he and PBS have accessed comprehensive sources and they mention the info about 20th century observations", but given that I think we are straying off the point I say only what follows.
 * Parrot of Doom has said above "Guy Fawkes Night uses two main sources, David Cressy's excellent The Fifth of November Remembered (quoted by numerous other sources) and James Sharpe's Remember, remember: a cultural history of Guy Fawkes Day, at 200 pages of prose the most comprehensive and detailed study I've yet found... Neither source pays foreign celebrations much attention, apart from Pope Day." (When Parrot of Doom refers to "foreign celebrations" I take it he means "overseas celebrations".) As someone else has suggested, relying on sources with a limited scope should not mean that the article adopts that limited scope.
 * David Cressy's The Fifth of November Remembered has information up to the end of the 20th century, although it is mostly interested in the event within the British Isles. When dealing with a topic which reaches out not only to North America and the West Indies but also to Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand (in short, to the whole of the English-speaking world), I do not think it is realistic to expect any sources to give a comprehensive coverage of all of the places which have marked the Fifth of November or still do. For the contemporary event, and for the event around the world, the two sources chiefly relied on at present need to be supplemented by a variety of others. The Encyclopedia of Observances, Holidays and Celebrations (2007) is one which comes to mind, as under Guy Fawkes Night it does attempt to range over the local customs in the UK, the Southern Hemisphere (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) and the Caribbean, although in a limited way. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " The Encyclopedia of Observances, Holidays and Celebrations" - since that book clearly contains content copied from Wikipedia and is therefore completely unreliable, perhaps you should remove it from your mind. Parrot of Doom 06:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Moonraker, I agree that this discussion is a tangent to the overall RfC, but it directly addresses your comment, which you made about the Guy Fawkes Night article. There does not seem to be a way to clarify statements made by those commenting on the RfC other than to ask for clarification on the talk page, as I have done. You characterized the conflict as being about the older observations of Guy Fawkes Night vs. more current observations when it appears to me that the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions. Where the first would mean there are simply two strong-headed editors who continue to argue and whatnot, the latter means that PBS does not agree with or understand that material in the article should come from comprehensive sources, not what the contributing editors think should go in the article. This is a fundamental and significant difference, and if PBS does indeed see Wikipedia this way--that editors decide what should go in articles despite what reliable and comprehensive sources have to say about the material overall, he's going to come into conflict over and over--and more likely the conflicts will escalate when the quality of the articles he edits are higher. The group of editors "sharing PoD's vision" are probably going to be editing GAs and FAs. I hope you can see where this is going... --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moni3, you said "You characterized the conflict as being about the older observations of Guy Fawkes Night vs. more current observations". That is quite different from what I said, which was "essentially between those supporting Parrot of Doom's view that this is an historical topic with a "trivial" contemporary aspect and those supporting PBS's view that it is a contemporary topic with a significant history". However, you go on to say "...when it appears to me that the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions... the latter means that PBS does not agree with or understand that material in the article should come from comprehensive sources." I still believe the case you are trying to make here is a red herring, so far as this RFC is concerned, but as I explained above it does not seem to me that the two so-called "comprehensive sources" are comprehensive at all. They do not deal with Guy Fawkes Night as a contemporary topic (that is, as a 21st century topic) and their focus is on the British Isles. I do not agree that "the conflict is instead about sources-driven material vs. editor-driven contributions", that misrepresents the position. Everyone accepts that in a Good Article all material must be verifiable by being based on reliable sources. However, if you begin by selecting sources which do not cover certain aspects of a topic, then other sources will be needed to provide the information which would otherwise be lacking. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then the onus is clearly on you to provide those high quality reliable sources that you believe to have been neglected, something that you have signally failed to do. We are a tertiary source simply reflecting what the secondary sources say. It seems to me that you and PBS share a common misunderstanding of how articles ought to be sourced. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker, did you or Philip supply good sources that were rejected, and if yes, can you give examples? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering only for myself, I provided some good sources which were mostly accepted. I am not going to try to reply to this question for PBS, because (1) there is too much work in it, (2) I do not think it is for me to speak for PBS, and (3) I thought we had agreed that such questions about the Guy Fawkes Night article are not at the heart of the RFC, which is about the conduct of PBS. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Always a good idea to stop digging when you're in a hole. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A very quick count appears to show that those endorsing this RfC, including PoD himself, have produced 84 FAs, but in the red corner none. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had come to a similar conclusion - that is, that the concerns about PBS stem almost entirely from among that small subset of editors who place great emphasis on the FA process. As PoD says elsewhere, "He's keeping me from doing what I enjoy, which is writing half decent articles".  I'm sure that's true, but it is also true that WP has many facets, and, like it or not (and I suspect you don't) many experienced and equally conscientious members of the WP community don't place quite the same high level of importance on that particular aspect of WP involvement, or its procedures.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether I like it or not is neither here nor there; many things happen here that I don't like. What matters here is that the less competent are refusing to learn from the more competent, and insisting that their incompetency is the wiki-way. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My sense is that Wikipedia is more at a point of improving existing articles instead of writing new articles. Eventually all the articles will be fairly decent. In the meantime, for those who work extremely hard to bring a page to GA or FA status, it's disconcerting to read the comments above. Moreover, it underscores Moni's point. In my view editors should not impose their vision of how a page should be; instead we must go to the sources (books!), take the time to read, and follow the information provided in the best sources available. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (Tangential but still pertinent:) Of course it is equally "disconcerting" for those editors who think that a high priority should be given to encouraging and broadening input to WP, to see some articles being, effectively, seen as "finished" and signed off by (unquestionably highly skilled) editors who see WP as in some way being finite, and capable of "completion". That is one reason why some see the GA and FA processes as flawed, and don't give a high priority to being involved in them.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Moni3 (perhaps not for the first time) has hit on the crux of the issue here. If I was writing a book or an article on Guy Fawkes Night then I would feel free to include my own observations on the event, but we're trying to do something different here; write an encyclopedia article that has to be constrained by what high quality reliable sources say rather than what I or anyone else believes to be true. It's rather telling that no such sources on the 21st-century celebrations have yet been offered. Malleus Fatuorum 23:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * They would be most likely to be offered by those whose interest is in GFN as a contemporary event, who I confess don't include me, even though I do agree in principle with PBS's view of what the article should be about. Of course, sourcing recent events is always more challenging than sourcing subjects which have been well studied, but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Evidently. So what are they? Malleus Fatuorum 01:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is outside the area of my interest and I do not have the answer. In general, as no one has suggested any comprehensive sources on GFN around the world (or even in the United Kingdom) in the 21st century, the information is going to be in a variety of sources dealing with each country: such as general works about popular traditions and culture and national newspapers of record, such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph. Those are not reliable sources on a par with peer-reviewed specific studies, but if we are to cover contemporary events at all we need to use them and do. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So despite this subject being outside your area of interest, or experience, you still think you know better than the expert sources I've used. I think you should re-read Moni3's comments above and consider taking them to heart. Parrot of Doom 19:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole thread, Parrot of Doom, you will see that it is not the subject of the article which is "outside my area of interest" but the 21st century aspects of it. None of us can have any "experience" of the vast majority of the facts stated in the GFN article, but the word "experience" is yours and not mine. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That hole is getting deeper all the time. Parrot of Doom 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we please have no more of this nonsense, Parrot of Doom? You began this RFC to pursue your grievances against PBS, please remain focussed on that. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not at all interested in your advice, since its clear to me you have none worth listening to. Parrot of Doom 07:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I should be wasting my time in advising you to learn the difference between it's and its, Parrot of Doom. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as I would be wasting my time in pointing all the grammatical errors you yourself have made on this page. Really, is this the best you can come up with? There are many who would consider your reply to be at best impolite, particularly with the deliberately insulting blue links. You were asked to provide sources that have been ignored. You have been unable to provide anything other than a vague idea that some must exist. End of story. Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is all nonsense, and completely beside the point of the RFC. When ostensibly attacking PBS, it does your group no credit to behave in such ways. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no "group", and nobody is "attacking" PBS. For you to distort the truth in such a way is completely reprehensible, although not at all unexpected. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks very like a group and it looks very like an attack. I suppose when you yourself referred to "your tag-team member PBS" you have some evidence of a "tag-team"? If not, can you explain why that was not "distorting the truth"? Moonraker2 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're making a fool of yourself, time to stop. When have I accused anyone of being a member of a tag-team? If you have to resort to lying to win your point then your point can hardly be worth winning. Malleus Fatuorum 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As ever, you are very free and easy with your accusations. See this diff. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus of RfC
This RfC isn't about the Guy Fawkes article. It's about a very long-term problem of disruption from Philip. It's unfortunate that a small number of editors have taken a myopic view about that, because supporting Philip will make it harder for him to see that there really is a problem here—and there really is, Moonraker, by any standard. The aim of the RfC should be to describe it fairly and accurately, then try to find a solution. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that this RfC isn't about the Guy Fawkes article, SlimVirgin, and I agree too if you mean the Guy Fawkes Night article. When you say "It's about a very long-term problem of disruption from Philip", my own experience is not of disruption by PBS, even short-term disruption, and you have seen what has been said above. Apart from that difference, we seem to agree on not wanting to go down a side-alley. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've only interacted with Philip on this article, Moonraker; I don't know that for sure, it's just a guess. If that's the case, you may not be aware that the approach taken at that article is just one example of an issue that stretches back years, and covers multiple articles, policies, and guidelines, and really has gone beyond the point where action is needed. The difficulty lies in taking time to describe it, and collect diffs. That's the only reason action hasn't been taken before this, that it's so horribly time-comsuming. And so it has been allowed to continue, way past its sell-by date. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 02:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond the Guy Fawkes Night page, my experience of PBS is mostly in articles on the 17th century in England, most of them fairly obscure. That's the area where our interests most overlap. He is a solid, capable contributor and I like his work. Parrot of Doom asked me to read this ANI, and I replied that I thought PBS was defending himself when attacked. See the conversation below, in which I thought PBS behaved very courteously under attack. This is pretty typical of what I have been observing. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

 Extract from Talk:Guy Fawkes Night/Archive 4


 * Why refer to the guideline as "your precious guideline", and why accuse PBS of "an intent to disrupt"? It clearly isn't so. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read this Moonraker. It might help you understand exactly what kind of editor PBS is. Parrot of Doom 12:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cet animal est très méchant; quand on l'attaque il se défend. Moonraker2 (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you post that to give the impression that you're intelligent, or as is more likely, pretentious? Parrot of Doom 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to develop a sense of humour, Parrot of Doom. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nev1 please could you explain to me why you think that the version you reverted to is preferable to that recommended in the guidelines? -- PBS (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From the history of the article: "16:26, 19 April 2011 Nev1 (Undid edit by Philip Baird Shearer (talk), the explanation is there if you care to read it, however I feel that reitterating it is feeding deliberate trolling)" There is no deliberate tolling by me and I do not think it helps to accuse a fellow editor of such behaviour. I think it would be far more constructive if you could indicate with a link or a time stamp, which answer to which you are referring. -- PBS (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see another RfC in your future PBS, and a likely desysopping if you don't start to get your arse in gear. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look further up this section you will see that I asked you a question. "Please explain why it is not better to go with the common headings for these sections?" you have not yet answered that question, but you have still reverted my edit. Please could you answer. -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Find something useful to do, PBS. Rome will not fall if you don't get your way here. In fact there are about 3 million articles begging for someone to spend as much time adding references and providing more information as you have demanding that this edit be taken seriously. Nev1 (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the edits I have made to this page are useful and improve it. You made a revert, of one of those edit, I have asked you to explain that revert in terms of policies and guidelines, a courtesy I extended to you when you asked me to justify my edit, and I would appreciated if you would extend to me the same courtesy. -- PBS (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That may be your opinion but it certainly isn't mine. You've been, and are continuing to be, a complete PITA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That's illustrative of the problem, Moonraker. Looking at diffs in isolation can present a very different picture. It's the pattern that matters, and it's difficult to convey without doing a lot of work digging up whole conversations. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 06:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slim, here. A review of the entirety of what the RFC is about, which is spelled out in a number of diffs and is what the focus should properly be on, does not show this editor to be "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational."  Nor does it reflect a mere personal dispute with Parrot.  Quite the opposite, on both counts.  I presume that most editors commenting are reading all the diffs, which is why the overwhelming majority at this point (and every one of the most senior editors, who have more edits than I have) have supported the view that there is a significant problem here that needs to be addressed.  If for some reason a minority fails to see it, well -- that happens all the time.  But if it is because they are turning Nelson's eye to the entirety of the diffs presented, the community would be better served by them reading the diffs and ... if as I expect they will read them with an open mind ... perhaps deigning to join the consensus view.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If not "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational" then overwhelmingly so; certainly more so than those pursuing the present grievances against PBS, at least one of whom could almost be called "unfailingly angry, vitriolic, and irrational". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And who might that be? And why do you find it so difficult to discuss the issues rather than the personalities? Believe me, there are no RfA Brownie points in this for you Moonraker. Malleus Fatuorum 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Moon -- That's your view after reading all the diffs? And not just -- as your post indicated -- focusing on your personal interaction?  I'm flabbergasted.  I'm with the strong consensus that finds (looking at all the diffs) that this editor has a long-term history of belligerency in trying to impose his way against consensus on a number of articles.  It has been flagrant, and long-standing.  Either you're not reading the diffs, or your "interpretation" of the diffs is very much at odds with the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "If not "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational" then overwhelmingly so", by which I was referring to his general conduct as I have seen it over the years, taking account of the diffs. PBS has been around on Wikipedia for a very long time, and the diffs in question are clearly not representative of his general editing - frankly, in a process like this they are bound to be selective. I could produce some long strings of diffs showing some of those who are sniping at PBS being far more belligerent in seeking to impose their views on others, but this RFC is not about their conduct and I see no good purpose in it. All the same, there are faults on all sides here. We need to see a fuller picture and I suppose we shan't do so until PBS makes his own response. Unhappily, I see he has made no edits to the English Wikipedia since Parrot of Doom left this note on his talk page nearly three days ago. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I have read I have to disagee with what Moonraker sees as "unfailingly calm, courteous and rational". My interpretation is calculated and niggling done in a "calm and courteous" manner guaranteed to wind other editors up. --J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * J3Mrs seems to be agreeing with "calm and courteous" but adding "calculated and niggling". So far as that's intended negatively, I'm not sure I agree with it, but both words have a positive side. In my view in a historian "calculated and niggling" have much to be said for them. In reply to "a "calm and courteous" manner guaranteed to wind other editors up", perhaps those who are wound up by calmness and courtesy should learn to be more tolerant of them! Moonraker2 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You completely misinterpret my intentions, perhaps I should have said "calm and calculated trolling".--J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that not rather gratuitously insulting? We define a troll as "someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion". I have never seen PBS posting any inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages. Frankly, the use of the word "troll" here strikes me as inflammatory and off-topic. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Moonraker's definition of trolling and mine obviously aren't the same. The very best trolls are so much more subtle than he/she appears to think. Persistent but "polite" asking the same question repeatedly serving little or no purpose, reverting so that another editor gets involved in 3RR (while making certain he abides by the letter, but not the spirit, of the rule), inserting how? why? and what? tags are the sort of things I have in mind. --J3Mrs (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition I stated above is not mine, it's from our Troll (Internet) page. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you meant that PBS's calm manner is in fact intentionally provocative, that is what you should have said, so that we can be clear. OK, I'm now trying to keep score. It is alleged that PBS is: (a) "disruptive", but that that can only be seen by examining a huge number of diffs; (b) harassing PoD (this would be the policy interpretation of PoD's view that PBS's editing spoils PoD's editing enjoyment, if done deliberately); (c) a troll with good manners. I would argue that there are other explanations of certain attitudes. I think PoD and PBS both care about writing history, but have different approaches to style, and context. Not so surprising. Also to policy; and I'm a bit concerned (to put it mildly) about some of the advice PoD is getting (if this is really a case for WP:HARASS to be invoked–not that I think it is–we should be looking in quite different places, and the focus has been wrong so far). Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker completely misinterpreted my comment but perhaps I should have been more circumspect. CM's summary "PBS's calm manner is in fact intentionally provocative" is indeed more eloquent. Thank you for that. I too felt irritated by PBS's input on the Guy Fawkes talk page where he did indeed provoke "an emotional response" from PoD.


 * 'PBS is..."disruptive", but that that can only be seen by examining a huge number of diffs.' Well, yes - isn't that exactly the point? He has been disruptive over a long period of time and you would need to look at a lot of diffs to see that. Richerman (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to represent fairly what was being alleged. Since I don't believe it myself, I'm glad I have come reasonably close to doing that. In my view, such allegations can be used simply as an excuse to rake up past conflicts which do not conform to any pattern, but just represent selectively the experience of editing here in any contentious area (cf. use of the Dresden article below). And this thing of never having quite enough evidence to present as a complete case reminds me of something ... got it ... conspiracy theorists who always think that there is going to be a clincher round the corner. I have thought that the guideline definition of "disruption" is flawed since the point in 2008 when it appeared clear that it was going to be used to argue that those who edited within the rules actually deviously weren't doing that. Not that the page is useless, but the scope for wikilawyering with it is uncomfortably large. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Further evidence of disruption
I'm unclear if the rules allow for further evidence to be added on an RFC's talk page, but here we go anyway:


 * Talk page discussion on References section - prompted by a series of reversions in August 2008 - the edit rationales are enlightening. Parrot of Doom 06:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not disruption. It's an exchange of views. Ironic that User:Butwhatdoiknow has a later 3RR in their block log, given the tone of comment. But these things happen, i.e. different perspectives clashing to some extent.


 * While you are clearly tenacious in research all round, which is admirable, and while Disruptive editing does exist and is a behavioural guideline, I have found in recent times its appeal to some sort of gestalt thinking to be tendentious in itself. As with many of our guideline pages, the nutshell is more fruitful to think about than taking the details as gospel.


 * Anyway mediation would be a good idea, since it is based on trying to get parties to understand what the other side is trying to achieve, rather than framing disputes in terms inferred from ever larger numbers of diffs. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If we supply diffs, there are too many, but if we don't, people don't see the pattern. The bottom line is that Philip tends to focus on issues he's not particularly good at, but is very stubborn about insisting his opinion is correct, which is not a good combination. If he doesn't recognize this, the problem will continue, with all the trouble that causes the editors forced to deal with him, and eventually I think it will lead to sanctions, so it's in his interests too to get it sorted.


 * It would help if the people defending him could persuade him to change his approach. What would help a great deal would be if he could identify where his strengths lie, and minimize his involvement in areas where he's weak, or at least if he's editing in those areas learn to bear in mind that his personal opinions might be wrong. That would make a huge difference. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That is only one way of looking at it: I happen to know of parts of PBS's editing where he is good at what he is doing (I met him working over a copyvio issue, he is a good historian, and has done admirable template work). Quite another "pattern", which is why I said gestalt. Consistent with what you're saying, 2008 is not a good source of diffs (one point), because we all live and learn on the site, while others who have been annoyed at us in the past may make no allowances for that. (Old diffs are quite valid if this ever comes to the ArbCom, but arbs also know what to make of them.) The second point about this diff is that getting to the bottom of what people are meaning by terms such as "citation" is very far from a waste of time: quite the opposite. PBS does give lengthy justifications of his positions. You are saying "stubborn", but this diff at issue and the ANI discussion seem more to me like the verbal right of self-defense, which we all have to use on occasion when others seem to be accusing us of not being thoughtful in what we do as editors.


 * Put it this way, who would have thought that Guy Fawkes Night would be a contentious area in terms of the scope of topic? As sectarian, possibly. Your "areas where he's weak" refers to traditional British festivals? I don't think so. I admire both editors at the centre of this debate, and have as much a wish as anyone to sort out this business. I suppose neither PBS nor PoD will admit that their vision of the topic's scope is actually wrong; and I don't really see that they have to, but all editors should play by the rules. Going forward the content issue needs to be addressed in that way. A pile-on here ought not to be necessary for all to agree on that point. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The Guy Fawkes article was only the latest example; it's misleading to focus on it too much. I don't really want to list the weaknesses. Suffice to say, there are problems with writing, and it can often be difficult to understand what's meant, yet editors are expected to respond to post after post—sometimes for months on end—or be reverted for not responding. I'm not thinking of any particular year; it continues now as before. Perhaps I'll try to find a good example.


 * Charles, you say he's a good historian. Could you cite some examples of this? It would help to see something concrete. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I should point out that some of the people who are being caricatured as "defending PBS" are not necessarily defending him at all - certainly not over every specific instance. In my own case, so far as I can remember I have never had any significant direct interaction with PBS, either positive or negative, and in the absence of that am unwilling to make a judgement.  Our views happened to coincide over some (not all) aspects of the contents of the GFN article, and my concerns over the article itself were aggravated by the incivility of another editor (anyone interested can go through the article talk page history).  So far as this RFC goes, my concern is that the case made by PoD only sets out one side of the story, not a balanced viewpoint (not surprisingly, of course).  But PBS will need to defend himself.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Discussion on punctuation and inline cites - this is interesting, because PBS says this:

"So Tony1 you want to enforce one version on every article, and you want to choose the version you like best. One can make a good argument for using the Nature method, so if we are going to use one method then why not use that method? I think it is better if like the national verity of spelling that so long as articles are internally consistent editors should be able to use the style they prefer and consensus a local consensus should be found before that style is changed. I see no harm if advising that one method is preferred if the editors come here looking for guidance but I do not think we should be prescriptive. -- PBS (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)"


 * This is a point of view completely opposite to his later posts at HD&Q and GFN on Reference section formatting, where editors are apparently not allowed to use the style they prefer, and where the local consensus should be ignored. Just look at the last sentence above - did PBS write that, or was it an imposter? Parrot of Doom 12:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a diff for the second view you note above? I assume that GFN refers to Guy Fawkes Night but am uncertain about what HD&Q is meant to represent. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see this discussion. Parrot of Doom 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, you are not actually a prosecutor here. I think you should back off now. The RfC is about getting community input, not more and more of yours. We all have the picture that you have no time for PBS. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of backing off. Anything I can find that helps shed light on what PBS has been doing here, I will post. Parrot of Doom 14:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, then I think you have missed the point. This is not a courtroom drama. It is a community process with the intention of resolving a dispute. My point would be that, if you think PBS is inconsistent, we'd prefer that you were on collegiate terms with him and could talk it over to get his side of the story. If you think that trawling through all his contributions is going to get you onto better terms, you are simply wrong about that: it makes clear enough a selective approach to evidence. I think anyone with enough background here recognises that there is something about this dispute that is causing it to escalate; and anyone with experience of our dispute resolution knows that this is bad stuff for the mission as a whole. You have just stated, in effect, that you want to destroy PBS's reputation, rather than improve the encyclopedia. That crosses the line. Such animus is obviously an "escalating" factor. Just don't take this line. It puts you in the wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He's providing more examples, Charles, which is what's needed. As people have explained, these problems go back for years, and are extensive. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is exactly as I have outlined on the RFC, I am providing more examples to back up my assertions. My point above isn't just that he's inconsistent, it's that he deliberately games the system, telling one group that editors should be allowed to make their own choices on style (because it suits his argument), while telling another group that they should not (because it suits his argument).  PBS has done a fine job of destroying his reputation, without my aid. Parrot of Doom 15:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you are not too consistent yourself: diff. You are, fortunately for us, a content expert; but disclaiming interest in certain other things and then appointing yourself to deal with them some weeks later isn't so good. You say you're not interested in policymaking, and then start producing material from policy talk pages to suit your argument ...? And as you say there, you don't care about him anyway. Look, I've been around here just about 8 years now and I surely know how fed up people get. Stating your case and then sitting down is the right approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You must be under the illusion that I'm doing this to score points, or "win" something. If you are, then allow me to correct you.  I am doing this because I think PBS is a disruptive editor.  He's keeping me from doing what I enjoy, which is writing half decent articles, and I have no doubt he's done the same to other people as well.  I want him to stop his disruption and work constructively, and this is the only way I know to do it.  Hopefully he'll take heed of the comments in this RFC, but if he doesn't then I'd like the community to use whatever powers it has to either force him to change his ways or leave.


 * By the way I am not an expert on anything. I'm knowledgeable on certain subjects and skilled in my career, but no more. Parrot of Doom 16:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but to the extent that "disruptive" is defined in policy (it isn't really - a duck test applies) you are not showing that. You started this thread with a diff that by no stretch of the imagination does that. It shows PBS in a somewhat messy discussion from two and a half years ago. Getting this matter into some sort of dispute resolution is a plus: overdue. You have started to stray into pot-kettle territory, which I don't like to see. Now let the RfC run its course as a straw poll, because that is what it is. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfC has only just opened; other evidence will emerge. PoD has recently written an FA—despite Philip's attempts to disrupt the process—is steering it through FAC, had to fend off a threatened block during that because of Philip, and has now had to find diffs for an RfC. This is too much to ask of people, and he shouldn't be criticized for it. There are lots of editors who would have left rather than put up with this.


 * Charles, you may have missed my request above. You wrote that Philip was a good historian. It would help to have some examples. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Siege of Basing House is last year; the toolserver suggests he starts a couple of articles a week. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just glancing through this very quickly, he appears to have copied some or most of it from a PD source, and has acknowledged that at the end:


 * Philip, citing Gardiner 1889: "The feeling of the day about the slaughter among supporters of the Parliamentary cause is well brought out in a contemporary London newspaper. "The enemy, for aught I can learn ...".


 * Gardiner 1889, p. 347, footnote 2: "The feeling of the day about the slaughter is well brought out in a contemporary newspaper: "The enemy ..." etc.


 * Philip, citing Gardiner: "Waller's first attack upon Basing House was frustrated by a storm of wind and rain. His second attempt came to nothing from a cause far more ominous of disaster. His troops had long remained unpaid, and a mutinous spirit was easily aroused amongst them."


 * Gardiner 1889, p. 294: "Waller's first attack upon Basing House was frustrated by a storm of wind and rain. His second attempt came to nothing from a cause far more ominous of disaster. His troops had long remained unpaid, and a mutinous spirit was easily aroused amongst them."


 * Philip has been reverting for the last few months any attempt to say in WP:V that in-text attribution is needed for close paraphrasing. When he does things like that, it's usually a sign that he is personally doing the thing he doesn't want the policy to advise against.


 * Do you have any examples of good history articles he has written himself? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I said, he has many new articles, and you can browse them from his contributions. You are not really being fair-minded about this one, you know; and even less so if you just turn it into a slanted commentary on a policy discussion; and even worse is the "it's usually a sign that" - you've simply made up your mind, pretty clearly. (There is nothing wrong with simply holding opinions; and as for reverting changes to policy pages, that is normal enough.) Just as PoD was being polemical in the diff I gave in saying PBS doesn't know how to improve articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles, you said he was a good historian; you must have had a reason for saying that. Just as people are looking for diffs to support criticism, if you post something positive, examples are helpful. I ask because, in all honesty, it would surprise me to find that, but it would be a pleasant surprise, and it ought to be taken into account if it's accurate. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to retract what you implied about Siege of Basing House in haste. There are 46 inline refs to provide detailed attribution - did you not notice those? The work PBS did on William Everard (Digger) and Robert Everard, sorting out contemporary views on persons who have been identified in the past, impressed me as scholarly and serious. The very sad thing here is that, in terms of early modern history, there is not the slightest reason for PoD and PBS to be at odds. PBS generates numerous soundly-referenced and useful articles that fill gaps; like me, he is in the group of contributors who "turn redlinks blue" in the area of history. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What is it you'd like me to retract about Siege of Basing House, Charles? It's clear that it contains material (extensively, so far as I can tell) copied word from word from PD sources. That's allowed—not good practice in my view, but allowed—and he cited the sources in footnotes, and attributed the text at the end of the article. It's obvious from the writing that it's been copied, and a Google search confirms. I'll take a look at the other two articles you mentioned. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. You gratuitously mentioned WP:V and a policy issue. Since PBS is not not doing what you implied he was not doing, namely inline attribution of PD sources copied, that look like a coatrack to me. Those reading this who don't actually check out the article may take your implication as true. Which is actually a form of slur, isn't it? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not at all gratuitous. Philip copies PD texts into articles; or creates whole articles out of PD texts. He was very keen that the policy not require in-text attribution for quotations and close paraphrasing for that reason. He made this clear. Note: in-text attribution is not the same thing as an inline citation. He supplies the citations, but he doesn't make clear that he has copied the words. As I said, this is allowed, though in my view an unfortunate thing to do. I realize others disagree.


 * The only reason I mentioned it is that I asked you for examples of history articles he has written, because you said he wrote good history. So if we could stick to that, we wouldn't have to mention his PD work. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip didn't write Robert Everard, Charles, you did (he made a few edits to it here). Was it another article you had in mind? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't say PBS wrote Robert Everard: I commended his work on that pair of articles. Because Christopher Hill, a major authority, identified William and Robert Everard, I had redirected William Everard (Digger) to Robert Everard. PBS made a fresh article of William Everard (Digger), which means that our coverage of the Diggers now is better in this respect than Hill's classic World Upside Down. And of course PBS also did some work on Robert Everard also, to update that. I was very pleased at this close attention to a scholarly point, and I imagine any student of the period would also be happy to have this done. It's the kind of thing that in the longer term will boost the reputation of the site. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He didn't do much work on Robert Everard. I don't know what you mean about close attention to a scholarly point; here are his edits. It isn't fair to talk the edits up, because that involves others having to talk them down, so everyone ends up looking bad and it becomes a time sink. If we could stick to the facts, with links, that would help a lot.


 * I can see that he wrote William Everard (Digger). Thank you for that example. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Come now, the "scholarly point" is whether person A and person B are the same, as Hill thought, or not, as per the ODNB. So there are now edits in the articles on both persons. You actually don't have to set yourself up as a judge here, really. You might just accept that I have a view, and that PBS does a wide variety of article work using what is actually a broad gamut of sources in different fashions. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So far as I can tell the last article Philip created was Anne Hungerford, by once again copying large chunks from an out-of-date PD source, the 1891 version of the DNB. Doesn't look like good historical research to me, looks like plagiarism. Malleus Fatuorum 15:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, MF, I don't know whether this RfC is really about what things look like to you. There is WP:PLAGIARISM and there is DNB, the attribution template as required, on the page. There a whole WikiProject, WP:WP DNB, devoted to this activity; and nobody says it is about "historical research" qua end in itself. But it is very active in building up the encyclopedia. This is quite an important point for me, naturally. If asked to give a quick justification, I'd put it this way: put the baseline represented by the DNB, a massive reference work, and you have done something serious. In fact WP has operated this way from its inception. Once there is an article, it can be upgraded in all sorts of ways. Heckling from the sidelines seems to miss the point. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the point is that it would be easy enough (though obviously harder) to summarize the material in our own words, rather than copying someone else's. I personally call that plagiarism, and if anyone were to hand in an essay like that at university, or to a professional publication, they'd call it that too. We don't, because attribution is posted to the page in the form of that template, and sometimes with inline refs too. So we allow it. But that's a weakness of this project, not something to trumpet (in my view). SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point Charles is that you made a claim about Philip's excellent work on historical articles that simply can't be backed up with any evidence whatsoever. It doesn't look to me like plagiarism, it is plagiarism. You may consider that to be good work but I most certainly do not. Just as Moonraker is making vague claims that material must exist, again without any shred of supporting evidence.


 * This RfC is about Philip's long-standing behaviour, to which it seems we can now add plagiarism. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, these comments are fairly ridiculous in the current context. There is a guideline on plagiarism. Making use of personal criteria instead of the project's - I'd call that "more RfA rather than RfC", pickiness for the sake of being hard to please. PBS is a substantial contributor of articles on the English Civil War. SV and MF may be parti pris and determined to discount any positive comments at all about PBS, but I think others may wonder why. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems quite clear that you've never read wikipedia's policy on plagiarism, or at least you don't understand it. Take a look at the last paragraph of the Anne Hungerford article I drew to your attention earlier, which is clearly an example of "Copying from a source acknowledged in a well-placed citation, without in-text attribution". The policy is quite clear: "Here the editor is not trying to pass the work off as his own, but it is still regarded as plagiarism, because the source's words were used without in-text attribution. The more of the source's words that were copied, and the more distinctive the phrasing, the more serious the violation." Almost the entire final paragraph in Anne Hungerford, which represents about half of the article, has been copied without in-text attribution. Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And Philip was very persistent in trying to remove from WP:V that in-text attribution is needed for quotations and close-paraphrasing. He went on about it for months. The problem, Charles, is that Wikipedia has developed a plagiarism policy that's out of tune with the rest of the world. We've decided it's okay to (in effect) steal other people's work so long as it's out of copyright, and we make a small note somewhere on the page that we didn't write it. Other publications don't do that, and people who take their writing seriously don't do it. It's a legacy of when Wikipedia first started, when the idea was to get content from anywhere we could, and it was felt that putting PD text online was one way to achieve that. I fully agree that putting PD text online is a great thing, but it should be done by Google Books, or Wikisource, or whatever, preserving the authors' moral rights. On Wikipedia, we allow editors to post it as though they wrote it, and you only realize they didn't when you notice the quality of the writing, then look at the small print.


 * Whatever view a person takes of this, it's not good history writing, or any kind of history writing, so it's best not to present it as such. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think of WP:PLAGIARISM as it stands, it is hardly on-topic here to go on about it in this fashion as "the problem". We are discussing something else, or at least were. It is fairly obvious that the general issue of using PD text is a major one, on which there are different views. One person may dislike PD text currently in WP (and I dislike some of it, certainly), while another person may see it as a resourceful way to develop our coverage. I actually subscribe to both of those views, with the obvious qualification that imported text needs to be handled sensibly.


 * As it happens, PBS has added some text to use at Wikisource; and he has done guideline work on attribution (the current useful way of using ;Attribution above a template such as 1911 or DNB was introduced by him). And he upgraded DNB in such a way that the author's name can be added as attribution. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I notice that you (SV) and Philip are by far the two largest contributors to the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article, where I also note that last July he was once again edit-warring with a couple of the other contributors. Definitely seems to be a strong pattern. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That was a long time ago, so I'd hesitate to bring it up. The only thing I recall is Philip resisted anything that he felt was criticism of the bombing. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's surely relevant insofar as it demonstrates just how long this problem has been going on. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There are recent pages that I think might show the problem more clearly. I'll try to look for an example. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Charles Matthews. Charles, you have some interesting and thought-provoking input on this page, but considering the bulk of it, it's becoming a little strange to read comments from you like "The RfC is about getting community input, not more and more of yours" and "Stating your case and then sitting down is the right approach". There are several highly experienced editors taking part here, and I don't think you can intimidate them by referring to your 8 years on the project, even if it's the current page record. Haven't you made all your points yet? How about sitting down? @ PBS. On the other hand, it would be interesting to hear from PBS. I won't put it any more strongly than that, as certainly nobody's obliged to take part in any discussion on Wikipedia, but it seems a pity to me that you're ignoring this RfC, to the point of not even posting an "I'm too busy" or "I don't care what you say". (I ignored an RfC myself once, which was indeed intended as an expression of disrespect towards the way the originator had set it up. But this RfC... What's wrong with it?) Bishonen | talk 10:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC).


 * Bishonen - this thread here started with PoD's "I'm unclear if the rules allow for further evidence to be added on an RFC's talk page", and I wished to make the point that PoD, whom I respect as editor but who is not too experienced in other ways, is better off leaving advocacy to SV and MF as "seconds". Perish the thought that I would try to "intimidate" such folk! Perhaps you didn't see that in the thread above this, I have been trying to sum up views, with perhaps some success. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@ Malleus. During last July (2010) BPS made only 5 edits to the Bombing of Dresden in World War II article (out of ten edits made during that months). In connection to that, it is unclear for me what edit warring are you talking about. If other examples of BPS edit warring are equally "convincing", I simply do not understand what disruptive behaviour are you talking about. With regard to the PBS resistance to something, I wouldn't say we can speak about any problem at all. In my opinion, anybody can resist to anything, the question is only in the means he uses. Resistance is per se not a problem if a user brings good quality sources, put forward serious arguments and is ready to accepts the arguments from others. Generally speaking, a conflict of two civil editors having opposite POVs is extremely beneficial for the article, because it leads to considerable improvement of content. Interestingly, PBS currently seems to have such a "conflict" with several editors over the Battle of Berlin article, and the fact that noone of his opponents hasn't come here to vote against him is a good indication the the alleged PBS "edit wars" are in actuality just content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you haven't taken the trouble to investigate then your opinion cannot be considered to be anything other than a personal and misplaced vote of confidence. What's your opinion on Philip's plagiarism for instance? Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And just to refresh my memory, in what sense are edit wars on main pages ever anything other than content disputes? Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussion about someone's inappropriate behaviour is supposed to proceed politely, otherwise it proves the opposite, namely, that the problem is not with the user we discuss, but with his opponents. With regard to "the trouble to investigate", when someone makes a claim "X was edit-warring", the burden of proof is supposed to be on the person making this claim. Since no evidences have been provided, I looked through the article's history for last July (2010) and found that only 10 edit had been made to the article during that month. By no means can it be considered as an edit war. However, if you believe I missed something, please, take a trouble to present needed evidences, because, again, the burden is no you.
 * Re content dispute, the edit war is a form of a content dispute, so whereas every edit war is a content dispute, not every content dispute is an edit war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your logic seems to be impeccably faulty; the conduct of a discussion between you and I says nothing about Philip. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably. However, taking into account that during comparatively prolonged discussions between me and PBS he has never been impolite, and that you managed to say so many impolite things during such a short dialogue, I am inclined to think that the problem is probably in the PBS' opponents rather than in himself. Of course, I fully realise that such a generalisation may be not justified, and I would be glad if someone proved that my conclusion to be wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then you should study the list of diffs on the RFC's page? Politeness has little to do with this. Parrot of Doom 10:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Politeness is always better. And on that scoring, PBS wins. However impoliteness can be created from frustration. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A polite disruptive editor is no less disruptive than an impolite one, except the former tends to escape censure much more easily, civility being something of an obsession on Wikipedia. Parrot of Doom 11:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Censure is not on your list of desired outcomes. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider the possibility of being held to 1RR to be a most effective form of censure. Parrot of Doom 12:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner is one of the 5 pillars. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  12:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting considering his actions, that I should respect PBS?  That faced with him being so disruptive, I should smile and be happy, and pretend that I'm not pissed off?  You do realise, don't you, that another part of that same pillar reads "Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point"? Parrot of Doom 12:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is a point or two there: no amount of "go away" amounts to an attempt to resolve a dispute, for example. No amount of assuming what you want to prove (that PBS is disruptive) justifies a lack of engagement as with a colleague. Civility helps, and fuel on the flames of a dispute does not: this we know.

I'm very much saddened by the amount of drama that has become associated the initial GFN dispute. As far as I know it isn't conventional to try to make an FA of one conception of an article when there is a seriously contentious issue about its scope. So I'm wondering who is on the wrong side of WP:POINT here. That may not be quite the right way to put it, indeed. But drama there is, opinions are not short that the drive to FA over the wishes of others was the right approach, and I can't say I see it that way. As I have said before, I don't believe PoD has been best advised in terms of calming matters down. And having to chew over the broadbrush claims is a good way to lose sight of all that, in fact. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Your hero has a well-established habit of refusing to engage in dialogue, just as he has done here. Surely even for you there comes a point when admins sticking together becomes more than a little ridiculous. Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude to PBS is clearly coloured by his being an admin (as far as I know misuse of admin powers is not being debated here, so it is not that relevant); just as SV's is by the fact that she and PBS disagree on some policy matters. As it happens, I think both PoD and PBS should do more talking to each other. It is not the case that I would support an admin just because they are an admin, if I felt they were misbehaving. I do actually have a track record on that. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Charles, you're not helping by accusing everyone of being unfairly biased, while implying that you alone have clear vision. It would help if you'd allow the RfC to run its course. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 14:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Moi? I happen to think this particular thread about it jumped the shark a little while ago, that's all. And actually I do suffer from myopia (please no more offensive comments of that kind). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Your attitude to PBS is clearly coloured" - now I find that really offensive. Richerman (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * AGF doesn't apply to us plebs, it's just another stick to beat us with. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

PBS's response
Without addressing a single concern, Philip's first contribution is to question the legitimacy of this RFC:

"There are two users who citified this RFC in the first 48 hours of its existence: Parrot of Doom (PoD) and SlimVirgin (SV). Where in the "accompanied by evidence" ("Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute") is the statement by Parrot of Doom (one of the two "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" ) attempting to resolve it?"

Philip, perhaps you didn't notice the links I posted to the very long talk page discussions on Guy Fawkes Night where I attempted (but failed) to answer every point you raised. Now can you please address the concerns of the eleven people who currently endorse my summary of your behaviour, the thirteen (including me) who agree with Dank's comments about your actions at FAC, the eighteen (including me) who concur with Malleus, and the ten who think as Greg L does, that sterner measures be taken against your account? Parrot of Doom 14:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

@PBS: statement of dispute, as PoD is the creator of this RfC. Honestly, trying to get this RfC deleted because he didn't include a diff next to his signature would be bordering on pointy. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * PBS does not refuse to "address a single concern", but he makes the point:

"Before I comment on the false accusation, created using selective differences which present the biased view at the heart of this RFC, I would like it to be considered if this RFC has followed procedure outlined above as the "Minimum requirement"..."


 * That strikes me as fair. A "Minimum requirement" should be exactly what it says. If it is not met, the RFC should be deleted and those pursuing it should begin again, first meeting the requirement. This is not a technicality, it is simply compliance with correct procedure, the purpose of which is clear. All other organizations in the modern world need to operate according to their rules, why not Wikipedia? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you insist the requirement was not met, WP:IAR seems appropriate. As I said above, to delete this RfC at this point would be pointy, as it's quite clear that a number of commenters feel there is a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per What "Ignore all rules" means: "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." That is how terrorism operates: the end always justifies the means. However, when it comes to RFCs, the spirit of the minimum requirement is fairness and preventing users from wasting a lot of time on an RFC which might have been avoided. Ignoring that rule does not serve the common purpose, unless you prejudge the outcome: but what can be prejudged one way can be prejudged the other way. In any event, a clear consequence is stated for not meeting the minimum requirement, and that is deletion. Once such procedures are ignored, the process of RFCs should also be abandoned, according to the rules of natural justice, which are above all rules for such processes. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you really believe this RfC might have been avoided that easily? Let's assume for a moment that PoD had, when he created this RfC, included one of the many diffs he placed in the "Statement of dispute" section next to his endorsement signature instead. What do you think that would change? The spirit of the rule has clearly been met here, and your referring to "terrorism" is way out of line. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Where does it say that evidence of a dispute has to accompany my signature in the certification section? This is another attempt to bog this RFC down in tangential discussions which shed no light on the matter at hand, which is PBS's disruptive editing.  I have tried very clearly, on numerous occasions, to diffuse the situation with reference to expert sources, Wikipedia policies, and by collaborative editing (on the HD&Q talk page, which, I might add, PBS either ignored or didn't bother to answer).  PBS should be answering the questions posed by this RFC, not dodging them. Parrot of Doom 09:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip's response is just another example of the behaviour that caused the RfC to be filed in the first place. I mean that seriously, not in a snarky way. It sums up the problem in a nutshell. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 10:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When you look at Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for comment, you'll see that certifiers never or almost never include diffs—it's not actually required by the rules. Ucucha 11:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) I think PBS's point of order is a fair one and should be treated as such. He is asking, as is his right, whether the RfC has followed the proper procedure for certification and I suggest that, rather than questioning his motives or attempting to use it as further evidence against him, the question should be answered properly by a neutral admin - either by certifying the dispute or by deleting it. Otherwise the process gives the impression of being a witch hunt of sorts. The assumption of good faith does not end with the filing of an RfC. --rgpk (comment) 12:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What an extraordinary turn of events. PBS unsurprisingly tries to wikilawyer his way out of this by deliberately misrepresenting the minimum requirements and another of his admin buddies comes along bleating about AGF and "witch hunts" (complete with the mandatory blue link), just after another editor compares this RfC to "terrorism". Anyone with the skill to read can see quite clearly that the minimum requirements have been met, doesn't require an expert in wikipedia jurisprudence or even that most mythical of creatures, "an uninvolved admin". Malleus Fatuorum 13:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, all I'm saying is that dumping on someone for raising a point of order in an proceeding against them is not the right way to go about it. PBS has asked if the minimum requirements have been met and it is only fair to answer that question. To use it as another example of bad behavior (with apologies to SlimVirgin above) gives the impression that anything PBS says "will be used against him". Best, always, to be dispassionate. --rgpk (comment) 14:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it even more surprising that the users certifying the dispute, and those supporting them, while not disputing the existence of the minimum requirement, should take the line "oh, no, this doesn't apply to us". Nikkimaria says "Well, if you insist the requirement was not met, WP:IAR seems appropriate." (That is, Ignore All Rules.) Parrot of Doom says "PBS should be answering the questions posed by this RFC, not dodging them." Malleus Fatuorum says "PBS unsurprisingly tries to wikilawyer his way out of this", and, to be fair to him, he asserts that "Anyone with the skill to read can see quite clearly that the minimum requirements have been met", but I cannot see it at all. Can MF please take us through the steps which met the requirement? Failing that circle being squared, the word "wikilawyer" seems to mean "we are entitled to ignore the RFC rules, and if the victim minds our doing that then he is at fault and not us". I agree with the wise words of rgpk, who says "...the question should be answered properly by a neutral admin - either by certifying the dispute or by deleting it. Otherwise the process gives the impression of being a witch hunt of sorts." I copy below the text of the minimum requirement, and it seems very clear to me that the words must (twice) and will be deleted are not intended to be ignored when they are inconvenient. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It might avoid further blundering on your part if you were actually to read the RfC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my meaning wasn't clear enough for you, Moonraker. I suggested that even if the letter of the rule has not been met,, the spirit clearly has. However, I would argue that in fact the letter of the rule has been met - PoD presents diffs of his attempts at dispute resolution in his statement of the dispute, and SV in her endorsement. Does that help you understand the issue here? As I said earlier, you can't pretend that there aren't a considerable number of users commenting here who see problems with PBS's behaviour, and ignoring or dismissing this RfC is not going to make the issues go away. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The heart of the rule behind WP:CIVIL is that editors should not treat Wikipedia and its members with outright and consistent contempt. This is mostly perceived as editors using "fuck" in various ways, or calling each other assclowns. But gentle and persistent editing to overturn improvements to articles, congenial but incoherent discussions about those changes and improvements, and responding to a valid and well-written RfC that has community input to it by urging one's wiki-friends to invalidate their concerns is also an excellent example of contempt. And Moonraker, if the fact that PoD has his group of editors sticking together bothers you enough to call attention to it in this RfC, why the double standard of acting on PBS's behalf here? --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regents Park: yes, wikis have unique politics, and they can be very unfair to individuals. I appreciate your last remark, and I really don't like to see such a long-established editor in the dock suffering almost universal negative comment. But in this case, the sheer number of people complaining speaks for itself. Philip's best course of action is to do what he has always found very difficult: engage with critics, short-circuit his well-worn belligerent knee-jerk reactions, and admit there's a problem. If he took the initiative in this respect, he would regain some control. Over to you, Philip ... Kindness and cooperation begets kindness and cooperation, here and at articles. Tony   (talk)  14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Questions to Parrot of Doom and SlimVirgin

 * 1) PBS wrote in his response "There are two users who citified this RFC in the first 48 hours of its existence: Parrot of Doom (PoD) and SlimVirgin (SV). Where in the "accompanied by evidence" ("Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute") is the statement by Parrot of Doom (one of the two "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" ) attempting to resolve it?
 * 2) Extract from 'Minimum requirements': "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise." What exactly is the dispute that two users tried and failed to resolve, and where are the diffs which show attempts to find a resolution or compromise?
 * 3) What was the resolution or compromise which was aimed at? Moonraker2 (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Since you clearly can't be bothered answering questions yourself, it beggars belief that you think others will spend time answering your own. Besides which, I am interested in PBS's response here, not yours. Parrot of Doom 07:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the 'point of order' made by PBS, rgpk wrote above "...the question should be answered properly by a neutral admin - either by certifying the dispute or by deleting it. Otherwise the process gives the impression of being a witch hunt of sorts." I thought you and Slim Virgin might wish to explain, for the benefit of the admin dealing with this request, how the 'minimum requirements' had been met. If you prefer not to do so, that is of course up to you, but it does not help the point to be resolved in your favour. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've clarified my certification, in case people were having trouble reading the diffs. And PoD's seems clear enough.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 07:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good morning, SlimVirgin. Of the three questions above, the first is from PBS to Parrot of Doom. Reading through the clarification you linked above, I don't find answers to the others –
 * (2) What exactly is the dispute that two users tried and failed to resolve, and where are the diffs which show attempts to find a resolution or compromise?
 * (3) What was the resolution or compromise which was aimed at?
 * If you can help with these questions it would be appreciated. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Slim Virgin's certification diffs seem compelling to me. If another editor's "certification" is required, count me in. I mean no offence to Mr Shearer: it's just a procedural thing. Please let me know if an official sig. is required. Tony   (talk)  08:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony1, I see you have joined in the certification, commenting "Here is a diff of where I've previously spoken up to try to resolve this chronic problem." Perhaps you could answer questions (2) and (3), but especially "What exactly is the dispute that two users (or three, if you prefer) tried and failed to resolve?" and "What was the resolution or compromise which was aimed at?" Moonraker2 (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker, with respect, you're crossing into wikilawyering, and seem not to have read the diffs. The dispute is described on the page: tendentious and disruptive editing, serial reverting, posting repeatedly on talk in a way that's hard to understand, raising trivial and tangential points for weeks and sometimes months on end; chronic wikilawyering; and ignoring consensus. Further evidence may emerge over the next month as others add to the RfC. If you feel it hasn't been adequately certified, ask an uninvolved admin to look at it. Otherwise, please consider moving on. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 09:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, the word "wikilawyering" is almost invariably intended as an insult, and it would be appreciated if you would stop using it. PBS, who is the subject of this RFC, has posed an important question which has not been answered, and I have enlarged on that with two more reasonable questions to you, also not yet answered. Your reply "tendentious and disruptive editing, serial reverting, posting repeatedly on talk in a way that's hard to understand, raising trivial and tangential points for weeks and sometimes months on end; chronic wikilawyering; and ignoring consensus" is self-evidently not a "dispute", it is a long series of unrelated complaints which could even be called a diatribe. I agree with rgpk that it "gives the impression of being a witch hunt of sorts". Please allow me to ask my last two questions again. If you are unable to answer them straightforwardly, or at all, then clearly the minimum requirements are not met and the RFC should now be deleted. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (2) What exactly is the dispute that two users tried and failed to resolve, and where are the diffs which show attempts to find a resolution or compromise?
 * (3) What was the resolution or compromise which was aimed at?


 * I've been watching this discussion with interest. Count me in as those who don't see a colorable issue in Moonraker's concern.  It seem there is a strong consensus on this.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noted, Epeefleche, but then you were the first to endorse the certification. It would be much more hopeful if there could be a strong consensus on your side of the argument that Parrot of Doom and SlimVirgin would help us by answering questions about whether there is a proper basis for the RFC. In the mean time, I have asked rgpk on his talk page to advise. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course you are correct that I was an early endorser of the certification. What I did not know at the time, but which adds to my concern here, is that the community overwhelmingly would view the matter as I do.  That doesn't eviscerate my position; on the contrary, as party of the consensus group, it supports it.  Similarly, a bevy of uninvolved sysops have now also concurred with my above comment, and those of others.  PBS had a strong streak of failing to heed consensus.  As with this issue, that's not helpful.  On this issue, the overwhelming response from the community is as indicated.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Ncmvocalist to take a look. I think I've inadvertently added to the drama so let me explain that my intent was quite the contrary. I assumed that a simple "yes, the process is kosher" or "no, it needs the following remedies" from a neutral admin or other editor would get this out of the way and the process could move on from there. I guess that was too optimistic :) --rgpk (comment) 13:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * After reading this comment, am I the only one who finds PBS's comment that this RFC might not be certifiable, ironic? Parrot of Doom 16:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it is; I'm another. Philip Baird Shearer, I really wish you'd take Tony's wise and kind comment above seriously, instead of the defensive stance you take. You'd be doing yourself a favour. As for Moonraker2, his lawyering on this talkpage is sadly unsurprising, considering the role he played in the Shakespeare authorship question RFaR. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Bishonen, you are not writing neutrally. You were involved in that SAQ arbitration, and we disagreed on most points. You should not come here to air old grievances, please confine yourself to the issues of this RFC. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point of order: "writing neutrally" is not required outside of articlespace and certain other limited circumstances (like notifications). Interested parties can click on the link Bishonen provided to determine for themselves whether her characterization was accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That is hardly a point of order, although I do take your point that Bishonen is not required to write neutrally here. In my view it's better if admins can try to do that at all times. It isn't clear to me which part of Tony1's comments Bishonen found "wise and kind". Perhaps "wikis have unique politics, and they can be very unfair to individuals", that I agree with. PBS is not part of a herd, quite the reverse, while some of those leading the chase in this RFC have more of a 'herd' character. I did not find it wise and kind for Tony1 to say "I really think the sheer numbers of people complaining speaks for itself." Most of those concerned appear to be acting in concert. This process should test quality of complaint and response, and not the number of those asserting a "problem". It seems there is still no definition of the "dispute" the RFC is addressing or of the resolution or compromise which Parrot of Doom and SlimVirgin have proposed, so I am at a loss to know how PBS is to respond to it. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you looking at the right RfC? Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's this one, isn't it? Moonraker2 (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an RfC, it's a prediction. You say that this process "should test quality of complaint and response", yet PBS refuses to take part except to try and wikilawyer his way out of it, as is his wont. Would you not agree that his failure to respond is in reality yet another example of the problem? Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I said here "PBS should be encouraged to spare the time to make a full reply to the request for comment, which of course he is not obliged to do." A few days later he raised a point of order, questioning whether the minimum requirements for an RFC had been met, and I agreed with that. NW and others have decided the point below. When you ask "Would you not agree that his failure to respond is in reality yet another example of the problem?" that seems to underline the all-embracing nature of the "problem" or "dispute" which PBS is being asked to respond to. He will decide what to do. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrator's comment
I have come here because I saw a request by SlimVirgin on ANI to look over whether or not this RFC/U was properly certified. I'm not sure if Tony is an entirely valid certifier, as the one diff he cites appears to be a one-off comment, not evidence of a proper discussion that failed to resolve the dispute. SlimVirgin cites ample evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute, and it is clear that she counts as a certifier. That leaves only Parrot of Doom. Although he does not specifically cite any diffs, I have looked through a number of the discussions he has linked to in his evidence. In Talk:Guy Fawkes Night (and its archives), for example, one can see that Parrot of Doom spent much time trying to resolve his disputes with PBS. To me, that qualifies enough for "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute". As such, I will not close this RFC/U for certification issues. NW ( Talk ) 19:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC) As an uninvolved admin, I concur with NuclearWarfare's analysis - though his is much more detailed than the one I was posting when I edit conflicted with him. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone who's watched a lot of RFC/U pages for several years, I'll add this:
 * The primary purpose of providing diffs in the 'evidence of failing to resolve the dispute' section is to make reviewing pages for 'certification' quicker and simpler for the folks who keep track of the RFC/U process. It would be incredibly silly to delete a page about a dispute that obviously exists, only to have it go back up an hour later with an extra diff on it.  That's why the main process page says "may be deleted" (=at the discretion of the admins who hang out with RFC/U pages) rather than "automatically, mindlessly, definitely, and without exception will be deleted".
 * If PBS is finished wikilawyering over the details of bureaucratic procedures, then perhaps he'll attempt to respond to the substance of the dispute. It would be good for the community to have this dispute fully resolved.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems fairly clear then. PBS, the ball is in your court. --rgpk (comment) 20:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, NuclearWarfare has summed up most of the points I was going to leave here, but I'd add the following (for clarity):
 * If Tony1 cannot produce any other evidence, then his signature will need to be moved down to the "Users endorsing this summary" section; obviously that doesn't eliminate him from commenting or participating, but it does mean he isn't a certifier (I note that I wouldn't point this out if there was no importance in making that distinction in this step of DR).
 * This exercise might have been somewhat avoidable, particularly if Parrot of Doom had more clearly provided the evidence at the outset or if someone else did on his behalf or at his request. But now that it has been raised here on the talk page, ideally, the evidence NW refers to would be (at minimum) linked to in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Perhaps Parrot of Doom will appreciate it if SlimVirgin assists with this? Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the proper sanction?
I wonder if we have explored sufficiently the proper sanction here for PBS. Our guiding light is WP:ADMIN. It states, in part (emphasis added):

Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies .... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status....

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for:
 * 1) ... gross breach of trust,[7 ] etc.
 * 2) Breach of basic policies (... edit warring ... etc)
 * 3) Failure to communicate[6] – this can be ... to ... concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
 * 4) Repeated/consistent poor judgment
 * 1) Repeated/consistent poor judgment

It strikes me that the overwhelming majority of commenters have indicated that they find PBS to have committed a number of the above infractions, and the reactions of the community indicated that it has lost trust or confidence in PBS. Given that, and given the guideline's guidance as to what should be done in such an instance, it would be helpful perhaps to have a discussion as to what the most fitting sanction is for what appears to be strong consensus as to PBS's infractions.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Epeefleche, I take it you have in mind Chapter 12 of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland?
 * "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
 * "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards."
 * "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
 * "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion PBS is only in breach of 4 - failure to communicate. And for that he should lose the broom. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  08:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Moonraker: Actually, I had in mind wikipedia practice.  RFCs ask that in an RFC the editors give voice to "Desired outcome".  We already have 26 editors supporting the view of Malleus Fatuorum, which is the vast majority of editors commenting (7 at this point support your view).  While matters can change, I would expect that to this point even you would see the consensus here -- the only editor I can recall having a habit of asserting he did not see consensus in such overwhelming reactions was PBS himself, oddly enough.  Given the overwhelming editor response here at this point as to PBS's behavior, the importance of focusing on the "desired outcome" now became even more apparent.  The wp approach is not, as you would suggest, to spend 30 days discussing the infractor's behavior, and then follow that with another long conversation discussing the proper sanction -- it instructs us instead to discuss them at the same time.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Moonraker2, if you are at a loss, it might assist the discussion if you let PBS speak for himself more. Could you please explain what it is you're trying to achieve with your input on this page? Do you realise, for instance, how demeaning it is to accuse other editors of tagteaming, as in "some of those leading the chase in this RFC have more of a 'herd' character" and "Most of those concerned appear to be acting in concert"? What's the aim of this "acting in concert", in your book? Bishonen | talk 21:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC).
 * Agree with this, and it appears more and more Moonraker's assertions that others are acting for each other is not dissimilar from accusing others of being uncivil while being uncivil. --Moni3 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree here with Epeefleche, Bishonen, and Moni3. The behavior by certainly would seem to be inappropriate, especially when the comments of the user are examined &mdash; in the context of comments made by the selfsame user about others. -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "acting in concert" is the last-gasp argument of those who dislike consensus? The charge seems to require no proof by Moonraker, and -- for editors such as Moonraker/PBS -- would seem to be the only possible thing left to say (no matter how content-less) when they dislike overwhelming consensus views that differ from their own.  It is disappointing to see Moon display the identical disregard for consensus that PBS has displayed.  But -- back to the subject of this string ... what do editors think the appropriate sanction should be here?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If in an RFC everyone contributing to it had a duty to agree with the "consensus" of the majority, that would completely devalue the process. With regard to "acting in concert" being "the last-gasp argument", it is a minor point and not a central one. This RFC is about PBS and no one else. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IMHO it healthy for the discussion to have people who oppose the action rather than the one sided Kangaroo court, with a view to sanctions does anyone seriously believe that if a resolution for "voluntary removal of admin tools" is even likely to be entertained by PBS(besides it aint really voluntary), though as its a voluntary request it inst enforcable in any meaningful way except to esculate this to ARBCOM. Also in calling for the voluntary removal it should be more as a result of questionable or inappropriate use of the tools. More realistic and productive outcomes are to be found by limiting PBS's ability to act in whats seen as a disruptive manor so focus instead on 1R limits, a limit at FAC as to what/how PBS can review, and topic bans. Gnangarra 01:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * RFC/U is "dispute resolution", not "sanctions imposition". The goal here is to find a voluntary agreement—something that everyone involved in the dispute, including the identified editor, can agree is best for Wikipedia.  If you want to impose sanctions, you have to move to another forum, e.g., WP:AN or WP:ARBCOM.  Support on this page for involuntary sanctions is sometimes taken as a sign of community support for such a sanction, but the process is not designed or intended to result in imposing sanctions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec)The process does call for us to consider the "Desired outcome", and seek community input as to what that outcome should be. If the community no longer has trust in PBS, or feels that he has engaged in sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia, or consistently or egregiously poor judgment, such behavior is (we are told by wp:admin) incompatible with the status of administrator. It may therefore (the guideline tells us) result in the removal of PBS's administrator status. If PBS has seriously, or repeatedly, acted in a problematic manner or lost the trust or confidence of the community, he may be sanctioned or have his access removed for: 1) gross breach of trust, 2) breach of basic policies such as edit warring, or 3) failure to communicate to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought). There is to this point robust consensus support for a finding of his having engaged in one or more of those behaviors. A discussion as to what the "desired outcome" is would be completely within the remit of this process (should there be a sudden turnaround which leads us to find 80 per cent of editors expressing the opposite view than 80% are expressing now, of course the desired outcome would be different, but we have now had input from three dozen editors and there is an overwhelmingly strong consensus to this point). Should we not reach that desired outcome, this can of course be raised to the wp:arbcom level, but we should exhaust the possibility of addressing it at this level first.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed with WhatamIdoing. In addition, I failed to understand the following. As a rule desysoping is a measure applied to admins who abuse administrative privileges, and a reason is to stop such an abuse. Therefore, the discussion is supposed to be focused on the examples of abuse of sysop tools by PBS. If such examples exist, he must be desysopped by arbcom. If no such examples exist, how desysopping can resolve the issue? --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Paul. Please read the first post above, from the core guideline on the subject.  Your understanding on the subject is at direct odds with wp:admin, which is quoted above.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What is quoted does not seem to me to relate well to the complaints of Parrot of Doom and SlimVirgin, but this is still an RFC and not an ArbCom case. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is surprising to see some contributors here believing it is fine for others to pile in to agree with the vague and highly selective criticisms of PBS by Parrot of Doom, SlimVirgin, Malleus Fatuorum, and others, but "inappropriate" for me to disagree with them. Of course, I am not the only one disagreeing. A lynch mob has "consensus", but a judicious process is better, and (as correctly stated by WhatamIdoing) RFC/U is for dispute resolution, not involuntary sanctions. Dispute resolution does not seem to be what some here, such as Epeefleche and Malleus Fatuorum, are after at all. Bishonen says to me above "it might assist the discussion if you let PBS speak for himself more", but nothing prevents PBS from speaking for himself, and I encouraged him to do so here. Whether he contributes to this discussion or not is entirely a matter for him. What Bishonen means is that it is open season for attacks on PBS, but not for defences. At this edit on 19 April, Malleus Fatuorum wrote "I can see another RfC in your future PBS, and a likely desysopping if you don't start to get your arse in gear." Can Bishonen say whether she considers that was an appropriate and civil warning for Malleus Fatuorum to address to PBS? Moonraker2 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are certainly both free and encouraged to have and to express your own view. Even when it is a distinct minority view, as here.  At the same time, there is nothing amiss with others asking that you take note of and respect consensus at the end of the day -- something PBS was uniquely poor at, per the current view of the community at the RFC.  As to what PBS himself is free to do and not free to do, that is a matter to be decided according to wp:admin -- unless what you mean is that PBS is "free" to act in a manner inconsistent with wp:admin, but not without consequences--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, I see no problem with being asked to "take note of and respect consensus at the end of the day", but we are not yet at the end of the day. When you add "something PBS was uniquely poor at, per the current view of the community at the RFC", I am not sure that I agree with you, but it strikes me as odd that you say "was uniquely poor", not "is uniquely poor". A Freudian slip, perhaps. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What is Freudian in referring to PBS's past edits in the past tense?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are indeed confused, Epeefleche, as "something PBS was uniquely poor at" plainly does not refer to "PBS's past edits", it refers to him. You wrote as if he were dead or no longer here. Moonraker2 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think "robust consensus" as claimed above fits the bill. PBS has clearly irritated many people. MF as "buddy" has certainly irritated me by some comments that are somewhat random but not designed to sort out the business at all: combative and unhelpful stuff. At some point PoD decided to ignore PBS and carry on regardless.


 * Admin status, according to the basic case law on desysopping, is not at issue here. ArbCom isn't bound by precedent, however, so if this matter ends up in Arbitration, they might take another view. If this matter is taken to the ArbCom, which would be one way of resolving matters, then I would argue that it should take a case with scope the GFN dispute, how it blew up in various locations (including FAC, which is obviously the point that bothers more participants here than anything else); and ultimately how the matter can be sorted out, not least so that future FA candidacies don't attract such drama. There is no sign that this RfC is now going to achieve that aim. ArbCom sanctions are variable, but some reprimands on specifics might allow us to get back to editing. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * When did "we" stop editing? This issue needs to be sorted out once and for all, and no amount of your wikilawyering will do that. Malleus Fatuorum 14:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Charles, looking at the number of people who would like him to lose the mop, that PBS's admin status is very much at issue. For me it isn't an issue, I just want him to work collaboratively and stop being a PITA, but ask yourself: if any editor with PBS's record of upsetting content creators went to RFA, would they succeed?  Of course they wouldn't. Parrot of Doom 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear - it's not so much that PoD decided to carry on, but rather the disruption ceased when the RfC began allowing him to carry on. In my view all he wanted was simply to finish a page, bring it to FAC and go about his business of writing an encyclopedia without having to engage in a running battle. TK   (talk)  14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not agree at all. Parrot of Doom was always far more combative than PBS. See Ghmyrtle's comments here: "I don't personally agree with many of PBS' edits, or all his comments, but to suggest that he is in the wrong and PoD's approach (which includes, at best, gross arrogance and incivility) is "right" is completely preposterous. There is no evidence either that PBS' views, or those of PoD, command the support of the "majority of editors" - there is disagreement as to the way forward (in particular, as to whether the GFN article should be expanded, or whether an (effectively) new, more general, article on Bonfire Night should be developed), and a poisonous atmosphere which is apparently designed to ensure that GF editors on such articles are driven away. What a shame that PoD should be defended in this way." Moonraker2 (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What a shame that you are so blind. Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus Fatuorum, if you could learn to play the ball instead of the man, you would be more persuasive. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You are flying in the face of consensus. Think about that MoonRaker2, with whatever limited resources you have available to you. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you mean there is a consensus that PBS is more at fault than those criticizing him, then I do indeed take the opposite view. If by "flying in the face of consensus" you mean that no one is allowed to disagree with the "consensus", then that is absurd. NB, there is no capital R in Moonraker. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Points about possible sanctions as an outcome of a request for comments
There are two points about sanctions which haven't been sufficiently considered here, and I ask Parrot of Doom in particular to take note of them:

1: proposing that PBS be desysopped is a blind alley. This is a user RfC, not an admin RfC, and the difference is far from merely technical. PBS is indeed an admin, but the statement of the dispute as described by PoD has nothing to do with misuse of admin tools. Look at the mainpage and see: it describes PBS's general user conduct and the claim that that conduct is disruptive.

2: an RfC cannot create sanctions. However, "it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction or arbitration processes."'''

Putting those two together, we can perhaps in a more focused way discuss the varieties of sanctions proposed under 2. Providing feedback to PBS has been amply attempted, without success AFAICT, as he seems to take nothing on board, and remains quite unprepared to change his ways. A sanction through "administrative process" is probably not workable IMO (I'm not even sure what it means). What remains, then, if this RfC is to issue in sanctions (which seems reasonable to me, but I'd like to see it discussed) is either community sanctions, discussed and determined on WP:AN; or a request for arbitration. Which, if either of the two, is it going to be? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC).


 * I'm sure that Parrot of Doom has no more interest in wikipedia's Byzantine processes than I do, but if PBS continues to ignore the concerns being expressed here then there is surely no alternative but to initiate a request for arbitration. Malleus Fatuorum 17:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thank Bishonen for ably advancing the conversation by his focus on point 2, which is helpful. Input by the community on that would be helpful as well.  As to 1, I believe if Bishonen reads the first post in the above string, he will see that de-sysopping is indeed an appropriate sanction for precisely the behavior PBS engaged in here.  Per wp:admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Psst.... I'm fairly sure Bishonen is female. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am considering leaving the following "outside view" at the RFC, to see if we have consensus community support for it:

"PBS should be sanctioned or have his access removed because of his above-detailed behavior. WP:ADMIN states that admins who have repeatedly acted in a problematic manner, or who have lost the trust or confidence of the community, may be sanctioned or have their access removed. PBS has both repeatedly acted in a problematic manner, and lost the trust or confidence of the community. In the past, admin access has been removed or suggested for any one of the following: an admin’s failure to respond to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought—as in this RFC), repeated poor judgment, gross breach of trust, and edit warring.  As WP:RFC states: “While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.”"

Input on it here would be appreciated. It could then be used as a clearer basis for the further action that Bishonen points to, whether by community action, arbcom, or otherwise.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Think again. Epeefleche, I can see no sign that you wish to use this RFC for its correct purpose, which is dispute resolution. Instead, you appear to be baying for blood, which is not terribly appealing. However you argue the matter, this is an RFC and cannot impose sanctions. “While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject". That means the RFC could arrive at a consensus and provide feedback to PBS. "Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.” That is clearly intended to come after the feedback to PBS, which has not yet been provided, one purpose of which must surely be to enable him to respond. I see no reason to short-circuit that process. Frankly, I should welcome some input from PBS at this point. It may be that his present disengagement from the English Wikipedia means he is working on a response, as his last-but-one edit suggests. It is also possible there is some other reason for his silence. Instead of drafting a recommendation for "further action", it would be more constructive for you to draft some feedback to PBS, and that should, I suggest, be aimed at dispute resolution rather than anything else. I should be glad to see a draft for that purpose. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The purpose would be to -- as precisely stated in RFC/U -- provide justification for sanctions by assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. That's all. Certainly, you are not objecting to the assessment of consensus?  As directly mentioned in the guidance?  As to the imposition of sanctions, as the above statement clearly states, that may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That last-but-one edit suggests to me that PBS is doing what he habitually does, keeping his head down and hoping this will all blow over. It won't. Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The important thing Epeefleche is that people's views are heard. I don't think you need permission to post your outside opinion; just post it, people will either agree or disagree.  The discussion is the important thing.  PBS is doing himself no favours by not participating. Parrot of Doom 19:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Epeefleche, RFC/U does not say "...provide justification for sanctions by assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject." That turns what it does say into something with a different purpose. RFC is for dispute resolution. If you will agree to draft some feedback to PBS, aimed at making peace rather than war, that would be constructive. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all for your input, from all three sides of the aisle. I've made some minor revisions as a result, and posted it to see if it has consensus support.  As contemplated by the guideline, which as Moon indicates states: “While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by ... assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject".  No doubt, any support it might attract would provide feedback to the subject as to the views of the supporters.  That would of course add to the robust feedback he has been given in the comments here and on the project page, by a great number of community members--I don't think he is suffering from a paucity of feedback.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * One oddity of the process you are now using is that the only possibility it gives others is to indicate support for your "outside view", not to indicate opposition. However many signatures it attracts, what degree of "consensus" can it show? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This attends all outside view postings, and is not peculiar to the one I just made. Of course, the fact that this view was posted halfway through the process means that many of the !voters will not have seen it, so it may fail to attract and reflect consensus comment, just for that reason.  We shall see.  If this goes to arbcom, they are experienced enough to see what date it was posted, and assess sentiment accordingly.  In addition, many editors have already called for sanctions and/or desysopping in the preceding view sections, and no doubt if arbcom assesses sentiment it will see those comments as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To my way of thinking, there is a real element of hysteria in all this talk of desysopping. It is not at all what an RFC is for. Those baying for PBS's blood would earn more respect by applying for an Arbcom referral. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No doubt that will have to be the next step. Malleus Fatuorum 20:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Moon -- I see a somewhat non-hysterical discussion by those concerned with the subject's behavior. They are noting it, discussing it, and seeking to determine the best way forward in strict accordance with our guidelines.  Our guidelines call for sanctions or de-sysopping for certain behavior.  To note the behavior, and seek to apply the guidelines, is not hysterical.  Characterizing it as "hysterical", or as "baying for blood", and accusing them of being "unappealing", borders on the ad hominem, and might be taken by some to be insulting.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look more carefully you will see the "not terribly appealing" is of the behaviour, not the person. I said "a real element of hysteria" and meant it. You may dislike the graphic quality of "baying for blood", but it seems to me very close to the truth. You do not want dispute resolution, Epeefleche, you want blood. How you have got there I do not know. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The unspoken issue here is that adminship is seen as a status symbol, and to remove it from a clearly malfunctioning editor might make matters worse rather than better. The larger issues are better discussed elsewhere, and for that reason I decline to vote on PBS's desysopping. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Epeefleche: yes, I read that post. But in practice, arbcom is more likely (in my experience) to focus on the use of admin tools, something that has received scant attention on the mainpage. At arbitration, if that becomes an issue, I think it would be unhelpful to talk about desysopping. Also, if the committee is so inclined, there's nothing to stop them from spontaneously focusing on PBS's adminship in any case; they seem to like rolling their own findings and remedies. I've followed (masochistically) quite a few arbitrations, and if arbitration is what the consensus here wants, I'd definitely go for PBS's general user conduct.

Meanwhile, it's depressing to see Moonraker's provocative clichés becoming ever emptier and more well-worn."Baying for blood" (twice!), presumably means "I dislike what you say" — I don't see what else. Moonraker, has it occurred to you that readers of this page are likely to get less and less interested by such posts, and to take them less and less seriously? See also "witch hunt" and terrorism. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC).

I read through the RfC and this talk page yesterday and today, and the whole situation reminds me strongly of other RfCs where the user in question ceased editing for a period of time, but editors continued to add to the RfC anyway (this can by itself be daunting as the editor is left with more and more to respond to). As for moving forward, progressing too quickly can lead to a tricky situation, as in my experience if you take this to WP:AN or WP:RFAR before PBS resumes editing, then very little will get done (other than being put on ice) due to the strong desire for PBS to be present to say something in his defence (yes, I know what the obvious response to that is, but the point is still valid). So my advice would be for those participating here to aim to wrap things up so that the RfC can be left in a summarised state so that PBS can be pointed to it later. And then if PBS refuses to engage with the results of the RFC, that will be the point at which to take things further. In general, I would say that RfCs where the editor(s) concerned don't engage, should be treated with care as it can degenerate into those speaking on either "side" clashing on the talk page (as here) and creating bad blood, partly in frustration that the principal party is not present, which gets a bit silly really. In other words, long talk page discussions like these are really only needed when the subject of the RfC is present to participate. It really is sometimes best to leave an RfC like this alone until the editor in question responds, difficult as it can be to disengage from a discussion like this if you feel strongly about it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have rather rarely read anything so absurd. What you're saying is that the best course of action for any administrator who is the subect of an Rfc is to keep quiet for a week or two and then just carry on as before. Not good enough. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You've misunderstood what I said (possibly because you try and read "administrator" into everything - it really does get annoying after a while to see another comment from Malleus trying to make it about someone being an administrator). What I'm saying is that if PBS resumes editing without responding to this, then that is the point at which to carry this forward. Trying to take this to WP:AN or WP:RFAR before PBS resumes editing will likely get nowhere. I think if you re-read what I said above, you will find that is what I was saying all along. Ergo, you misunderstood me. To put that another way: when the RfC winds down (and I'm also saying that an RfC without the principal party participating can create unnecessary bad blood as people argue about someone who isn't here), get someone uninvolved to leave a summary on PBS's talk page, pointing to the RfC, and then wait until he resumes editing. If he fails to respond to the RfC, then take it further. But trying to start a discussion at WP:AN or WP:RFAR in the absence of PBS will likely not get very far. And that is based on my experience of seeing that done previously with other users. You may want this resolved here and now, but I'm saying that, difficult though it is, it is best to just wait for PBS to resume editing. There is plenty to do while we wait. Don't get me wrong. There are some things I want to say here as well on the front page of this RfC, but I'm waiting to see what PBS has to say first before I comment. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll tell you what's annoying, seeing administrators desperately trying to defend the indefensible. Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, this is getting off-topic, but can I ask you a serious question here. Do you really divide everyone you encounter on Wikipedia into administrators and non-adminstrators and make presumptions about how administrators act, and presume that everyone knows whether someone is an administrator or not? It might surprise you, but I rarely know whether someone is an administrator or not, and I only look it up if I need to. FWIW, I'm not defending PBS against what is being said here. As I said, I'm waiting to see what PBS has to say about what has been said here. If you want to talk more about viewing the Wikipedia world through an admin-tinted prism (there is a tool that highlights admins in a different colour, but I don't think that helps), I'm happy to continue on a user talk page tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No I don't, not until they start trying to throw their weight around. Malleus Fatuorum 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Generally, when you come to RfC/U, the idea is to try to come to a voluntary agreement/resolution. If you don't want to be here but have little choice, then the idea is to force people to work it out without requiring much (if any) intervention from elsewhere. So in the case of the users having concerns, the idea is to persuade other users and the subject to see that there is a concern and that the subject need to find ways to change his approach to matters. After the RfC/U has concluded, it's certainly appropriate to discuss where to next on the talk page, but it's not necessarily helpful to do it on the main page. I mean, sometimes different approaches may work with different people (and voluntary sanctions aren't out of the question), but I'm not sure whether a blanket statement like "he should be sanctioned or desysopped" is really like to resolve matters. It might just be me in the way I interpreted it, but it seems to be prejudging the outcome. I think if it was something to the effect of "He really needs to be encouraged to do this and this, and stop doing this and this. There was a similar issue at abc location. It's not helping and is contrary to jkl policy. But if he cannot or will not make adequate changes to his approach, then a sanction or desysop will really need to be considered per xyz.", it might not seem to the subject as if there is no point in participating here seeing the knives are being sharpened either way. Of course, if the intent is to escalate as much as possible to effectuate the maximum sanction, then that's unfortunate.
 * If the filers and some of the outsiders can appropriately show a level of restraint when making their comments, it might be helpful for other outsiders to remember to show the same restraint so that they are not the cause for escalating a dispute unnecessarily (particularly when we are at this stage in DR, and the user hasn't made further contributions for a period of time to indicate whether this will need to escalate all the way or not. This RfC/U is going to be here one way or another, so whenever the user returns after the RfC is closed, there is no issue with escalating at that point (if not enough has been taken on board)...but we're not at that point yet; the RfC/U is just past its halfway point. There is no way of knowing for sure what the response (if any) is going to be if/when the user returns. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding here to the point that Ncmvocalist made that the effect of this RfC maybe that there is"no point in participating here seeing the knives are being sharpened either way." and "Of course, if the intent is to escalate as much as possible to effectuate the maximum sanction, then that's unfortunate", the following diff seems germane, where Malleus said (on 6 May at the FAC in question): I think it's getting close to RfC time for you now PBS, with the longer-term view of having you desysopped, something that ought to have been done ages ago. My reading of this is that this RfC is less an attempt to resolve a dispute, but to get rid of someone who has annoyed others that he edits with and has got into disputes with, and further it looks like an attempt by Malleus to make this about adminship, rather than about editing. I'm also concerned that the RfC appears to have been started in response to actions at the FAC. Dank's outside view says: "The last thing we need at FAC is stories circulating about nominators getting blocked when reviewers didn't get their way." The chilling effect works both ways, though. How about turning that around: "The last thing we need at FAC is stories circulating about people being dragged off to an RFC if they annoy a nominator." I realise that there is more to this than just the FAC dispute, but it looks like that was the precipitating incident, and that makes me uneasy. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Full disclosure: I've been participating at the FAC in question, as have several others here.


 * The idea that administrators are supposed to lead by example seems to be a foreign one to you, and to many others. If you have actually read the RfC, as opposed just coming here to pontificate, then you will see that there is a long-standing problem here that needs to be addressed. But of course you don't want to acknowledge that. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are right. There are long-standing problems here that need to be addressed. Hopefully that is the acknowledgment you were looking for. As I said, when PBS responds, I will probably post an outside view. It might cover more than PBS, depending on what I find when looking at things in context (as above). I'll try not to stray too far from the central point of the RfC (which is PBS's conduct), but his actions didn't take place in a vacuum. Depending on when the RfC is scheduled to close, I might post something anyway. All depends on the time available. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste your time with veiled threats, try to focus on what most editors are saying here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You want me to agree with what others are saying, rather than thinking for myself and looking beyond the diffs provided? It is my experience that if you only click on the diffs provided, you tend to get a one-sided view of things. Which is why I tend to look a bit further and try and get a more rounded view of what has been going on. Would you disagree with that approach? Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I don't see any reason to be uneasy that FAC was the trigger. I had nothing to do with the Guy Fawkes Night FAC, and I'm a co-certifier. The fact is that Philip's behaviour has been problematic for a very long time—going back to 2004–2005 when I first encountered him—and the only reason I didn't bring an RfC earlier is my preference has been not to deal with him.

I suggest we stop posting to this talk page unless there's an issue that really needs to be sorted out. We should let the RfC run its course, then ask an uninvolved admin to close it and sum up. Nuclear Warfare and UltraExactZZ have already acted as uninvolved admins here, so perhaps one of them would do the honours. If Philip returns to editing and continues with the same behaviour, a number of options are open to us. An admin or AN/I could choose sanctions, or we could go to ArbCom. But it's premature to discuss that. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to let the RfC run its course and not add more to this talk page, but as I said above, may comment or add an outside view if/when PBS turns up. Carcharoth (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've read this string twice. There are two points that, though raised, seem to be lost repeatedly by some.

1. As Requests for comment provides, an RFC "may provide justification for [sanctions] by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject." That's part of the effort here. One that is directly supported by wp guidelines.

2. Admins aren't free to substantively ignore RFCs about them. As the subject has done here. That -- in itself -- is a serious violation of a core requirement borne by admins.

Under wp:admin, the subject of this RFC was required to communicate here. Failure to communicate and respond substantively to the concerns of over 2 dozen members of the community, constituting the hefty majority of those who have commented, especially when as here explanations and other serous comments have been sought, is a serious breach of wp:admin. And it is one of the 5 failures that wp:admin highlights as those that sysops may be sanctioned for or for which they may have their access removed. This failure is of course a new infraction, created only during the past 2 weeks of the pendency of this RFC, and not even one of the many infractions raised in the RFC itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Epeefleche, you're welcome to post the outside view (the one you suggested above) asking that his adminship be removed. That won't necessarily mean it will be removed, but if enough people were to sign it, the ArbCom would probably take it seriously, particularly if Philip doesn't respond. I think the only point that was being made above is that the RfC has no power in that regard, only (possibly) influence. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets just allow PBS the chance to respond first, shall we? He may be on holiday or something.  If he starts editing again with any regularity, and ignores this RFC, that's the time to start thinking about such things. Parrot of Doom 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Slim hit it on the head, in Slim's above comment. As to Parrot'sthought -- people can certainly hold off, as Parrot suggests.  Just as they can hold off on endorsing any other comment (and at least one has).  Or, alternatively, they can endorse if they like, and later change their position if PBS provides a response that merits a change in position -- this happens all the time at wp discussions, such as RFAs.
 * As to PBS perhaps being on holiday (for the 17 days since this RFA was opened), I see that he has edited on May 9, 13, 15, and 21. And in none of those days did he reflect an inclination to live up to his obligations under wp:admin and respond substantively to the community here.  Nor did he indicate that he will be off-wiki due to 17-day (or more) holiday; I imagine, if that were the case, that most of us would make mention of it if we were in his shoes.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche's second point isn't quite accurate: Participation in any RFC is voluntary. There are (sometimes very severe) consequences for choosing not to participate, but we do not, and cannot, actually force people to participate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that RFC rules require PBS to communicate. I'm saying that wp:admin does.  It clearly states that "'Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... Failure to communicate[6] – this can be ... to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).'"  That's precisely the failure to communicate to concerns of the community that we are experiencing here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, Epeefleche's second point is quite correct; if PBS chooses not to take part in this RfC then he must relinquish his position as administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Philip posted on May 21 that he was currently tied up, and referred to his talk page, which I assume meant tied up because of this RfC. That sounds to me as though he's sitting it out. But silence doesn't rule out resolution. If an uninvolved admin closes and sums up, and Philip reads that and stops doing the things people have complained about, the dispute will have been resolved, even if never acknowledged by him.  SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add to that -- PBS's "silence" and "sitting it out" (his behavior during the 17 days of this RFC so far) is (as is reflected above) a violation of a core wp:admin responsibility. WP:ADMIN does not simply require that he act better in the future.  It also requires that he communicate (or be subject to sanctions or removal of access).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist
I would like to ask that Ncmvocalist not act as a clerk on this page. He is moving posts around, and in particular moved a new section I added—which I would like people to see—back to the top, where people are less likely to notice it. When I moved it back and left a note on his talk page about it, he reverted me. I'd very much like this to stop. SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, if you are not willing to adhere to the standard conventions of RfC/Us, being pointy is not the way to go about it as you have already been told on your talk page repeatedly. As an involved certifier, this is not your call to be making. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I see he has reverted me again. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have moved the section back into place, because it's a new section and I want people to notice it. It can't be added to the original complaint, because it's not part of the original complaint, and the response that Philip posted to the original was (obviously) not a response to the new section. So please leave it where it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The expectation on you is the same as on the subject of the RfC/U; that he can only post in his section except to endorse others comments. Please self-revert before this escalates. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly clear what SlimVirgin has done and why and I think NcmVocalist should leave well alone. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfC doesn't have a clerk, because we're proceeding on the basis that people use their common sense, and that has been working well. So I'd appreciate it if we could be allowed to proceed in that way. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The instructions clearly state "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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Has it become policy that admins can flout the standard conventions of DR for their own gain? Not the last time I checked. Dispute resolution runs smoothly on the assumption that participants will adhere to a basic set of expectations - namely, to follow instructions and comply with the rules. Where users inadvertently do not (or refuse to) adhere to these conventions, it falls on uninvolved users to ensure that they are being followed consistently and fairly across all disputes, rather than letting some participants hijack the entire process. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not an outside view. It's additional information that may continue to be developed; it's important; it's not part of the original complaint; Philip's response was not a response to it; and people need to see it. So please leave it where it is. Common sense trumps whatever the instructions say; and anyway the instructions aren't inconsistent with what I've done. This is an unhelpful distraction, Ncmv. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are a certifier and other than to endorse others views, you may not edit in the other sections. The reasons are pretty obvious. You are inappropriately invoking IAR for a perceived advantage in this dispute, and you are doing so while the subject is absent. This is inappropriate, so if you are not willing to revert, I don't consider it a distraction and I don't believe your dispute trumps others (or that you should get a special pass because you are an admin). As you are not willing to self-revert, I am taking this to ANI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC) But whatever. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO the location of these comments is unimportant.
 * We do occasionally make exceptions to the usual rule that SV should only write in the first section. For example, if there are many certifiers who agree on points A, B, and C, but only one also wants to talk about some point D, then the one person can post an additional view on 'D' below, so that it's seen as a separate, personal view rather than something that all certifiers agree with.  Such a view should never be dishonestly labeled as an "outside view", but the community is usually sufficiently aware of that problem, and we see "semi-outside", "involved", "additional" and just plan "views" on occasion.
 * SV, I think that most of the people following this page are generally savvy enough to see your additional comments via diffs, especially now that it's been announced here on the talk page. And NCM, I think that most of the people following this page have sufficient working memory to figure out that SV's "additional comment" is not an outside view.  I think that we can stop worrying about this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I support the action by Ncmvocalist. As SlimVirgin is a certifier, it is clear that she may not edit in the other sections of the RFC, except to endorse the views of others. In any event, the new section Additional comment by SlimVirgin is in no sense additional to the RFC filed by Parrot of Doom and SlimVirgin, it is completely unconnected to it. The new section does not have anything to do with the original dispute (whatever that was, and even that is not clear) and is not about a separate dispute. In it SlimVirgin questions PBS's use of admin tools, which she is entitled to do, but RFC is not the forum for that. It seems to me that she is merely aiming to discredit PBS in this forum, which should not be allowed or encouraged. Moonraker2 (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(od) Perhaps SlimVirgin could bold the first sentence under the section heading. That will make the whole thing clear and the comment will merely be technically out of place. --rgpk (comment) 19:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are effectively demanding that SV mindlessly comply with the exact wording of a sentence subst'd onto this page from a template (1) whose use is strictly optional, (2) whose content is not supported by any guideline or policy, and (3) whose made-up 'rule' is frequently ignored by the community for good reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No I'm not. I'm effectively suggesting that SV resolve this issue by making it clear that he/she is a certifier of the RfC/U. A mere suggestion. FWIW, a demand is an insistent and peremptory request, made as if by right. I cannot see anything insistent, peremptory, or even hint of a right in my suggestion above. All I see is a reasonable, if ignorable, suggestion above. --rgpk (comment) 23:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi RP, I think the words alone are clear enough without bolding them. I also can't see what difference it would make, so I'd prefer to leave it as it is. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm in accord with Slim and WhatamIdoing here. Not one of the more important issues at hand, not one to waste time over, but FWIW I think Slim's posting is reasonably placed for reasons the others present.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's additional comments
Regardless of their location, there is a discrepancy and problem with the comments. 1911 and Cite EB1911 both have in excess of 10,000 transclusions (current counts are 11,877 and 14,484 respectively). That means that the templates should fall under WP:HRT, and they should be full-protected. That doesn't mean PBS is prohibited from editing the templates to help improve them. This editing should be non-controversial, or there should be consensus to make the change. In these cases, it appears that there has been discussion about the changes, so the requirements of HRT have been met. This is only a cursory look at the situation, so I invite others to look through the situation, but in short, protecting and continuing to edit templates is not as automatically problematic as it would be with an article, per policy.  Imzadi 1979  →  17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's always better to have uninvolved admins add protection; the best thing is to request it on RfPP. I added two article examples where we see the same thing, so it appeared to be part of a pattern. More examples would be needed to determine how much of a pattern. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The last discussion I'm aware of about protecting templates was here on AN/I in September 2010, where the consensus was templates should not automatically be protected. As a result of that discussion Courcelles unprotected Template:Cite EB1911, which Philip reprotected in March 2011 and proceeded to edit himself. I can't see any vandalism or need for protection, and if there had been a need, he should have asked at RfPP if he wanted to be involved in the content too.


 * The point is that when you approach a page you have to decide whether you're there as an admin or editor. The only time admins protect and edit pages is when there are BLP problems, vandalism, and the like. But they can't simply settle in as editors on a page they've protected.


 * I should add that, until fairly recently (2008-ish?), admins were still semi-protecting pages they were involved in, so I didn't go too far back in Philip's logs for that reason. But the culture now is that even adding semi-protection is usually inappropriate if you're involved in content. If there were clear-cut vandalism and the protection were entirely uncontentious, it might be okay, especially with BLP issues—I'm not suggesting blind rigidity is a good thing—but generally speaking it's best nowadays to approach RfPP. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily find the evidence that PBS protects articles or templates he has been involved in terribly compelling. Although ideally the best course of action would be to ask RfPP to protect articles, I've asked for help there and have been denied for what I think are poor reasons from editors who have no experience with the article in question. I've put short protections on articles I've created or written when it's pretty clear a vandal is being persistent or the article just got an unexpected spotlight, like Harvey Milk on Oscar Night 2009. I'm going to trust that I know what's right for the content of the article. I can't say that this is PBS's experiences, but I would consider the *way over the line* designation at protecting articles during a content dispute, which I admit I am repeatedly tempted to do but haven't. --Moni3 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't reviewed your editing that you refer to, but have looked at PBS's. He is clearly violating wp:admin with blatant POV pushing where he is involved, not protecting articles he is involved in from vandals.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found Moni3's comments sensible. Epeefleche, if you wish to pursue SlimVirgin's complaint about PBS's use of admin tools, the RfC is not the place to do it. Moonraker (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
It might interest some of you to look over Template:RfC2, the (IMO under-used) alternate format for these things. In particular, you seem to be in need of a ==Proposed solutions== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to add a section like that. I've started a draft; any suggestions welcome. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Draft
To resolve this dispute, Philip is asked:


 * to avoid disrupting the featured-content process, and in case of dispute to accept as binding the guidance of the FA delegates;
 * not to use the tools on pages he has recently or regularly edited, or where he might reasonably be said to be involved;
 * to adopt a strategy of minimizing conflict between himself and other editors on article, policy, and style-guide talk pages;
 * to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming unclear or repetitive;
 * to consider taking a voluntary break from adminship for six months to concentrate on his editing skills and relationships with other editors;
 * to consider engaging with a neutral mentor for at least six months.


 * That looks reasonable to me, except that I'd say "to recognize when his talk-page posts are becoming unclear or repetitive". Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 21:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Could I also add that he doesn't try to game the system by edit-warring over an extended period and then reporting his "opponent" for 3rr as soon as make one edit too many?

I don't see any point in prolonging this RfC much longer as: In view of this I think that the best way forward is to make the recommendations, close the RfC and move on. I'm sure PBS will be aware that his future conduct will be under close scrutiny by a number of people and that this page will be used as evidence against him if he returns to his old ways. Richerman (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * PBS is obviously not going to respond to it.
 * There is agreement amongst the overwhelming majority of contributors to this page that elements of his past behaviour are unnacceptable.
 * The editors who don't agree with that view are clearly not going to be persuaded otherwise so we will never reach full consensus.
 * @Richerman -- I would think that we should afford all the full 30 days, even if the result turns out to be precisely as you expect. As to consensus -- we don't need unanimity; what we now have is such a supermajority that at this point it appears to me too that it is an overwhelming majority, which is "consensus".  As to the list, I think perhaps we have to look a bit at the complaints and make certain they are all reflected -- for example, PBS should be encouraged, for any time that he is an admin in the future, to comply strictly with it, including especially the instruction that he communicate as indicated.  Also, much has been written as to his tendentious editing -- something to ameliorate that in the future would be helpufl.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but once the list is completed the RfC could be closed by agreement. Until this proposal was made by SlimVirgin it was just going round in circles. Richerman (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I imagine there could be a "snow close". But I think the better course, and the one most appreciated by Arb Com (should they review matters), and the one that would raise the fewest concerns among those with the minority view, would be to let this run 30 days.  I have no problem with that.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd comment that the idea of declaring an article "in preparation for FA", as a way of barring discussion on content, appears to be innovative. Considering that the underlying dispute on scope of topic was clearly exacerbated by the attempt to do that, the matter seems contentious. The avoidance of conflict is the aim of dispute resolution; the better approaches to disputes of course do not put the onus on one side. I can quite understand why many people do not wish to have acrimony reaching FAC. Circularity, however, is not really being avoided here.

In any case I'm still of the opinion that ArbCom will probably have to sort out this matter. Points 1, 3, 4 in the bullets are quite sharp enough on conduct, the first (as I say) being the sort of thing that would raise eyebrows as a general principle. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am refraining from looking at/opining on the general FAC problem until the FAC closes, but I agree with Charles Matthews points on "to avoid conflict with editors preparing pages for the featured-content process, and during the process itself". We shouldn't stifle discussion during FACs nr make preparing for FAC an exemption from conflict-- the problem with this FAC is that PBS's comments on the FAC were not actionable, were disruptive, he canvassed others who supported his view (and none of them entered actionable opposes either), and then he went after the article with tagging rather than entering an actionable oppose.  This one should be reworded.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How about: "to avoid disrupting the featured-content process, and in case of dispute to accept as binding the guidance of the FA delegates; and to respect the work of editors preparing pages for featured-content nomination"? SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 19:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Or in other words - "act like a normal editor, stop being a pain in the arse"? Parrot of Doom 20:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep :) Slim, I would still avoid "to respect the work of editors preparing pages for featured-content nomination" ... we can't make an exception to regular editing practices for the FA process-- stifling criticism is not a good thing.  Critiquing articles correctly, based on the criteria, is what we expect, and where PBS went afoul of the FAC process.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair points, so I've removed the "respect the work of editors" bit. Actually the rest of the draft says the same thing, in effect; it should be obvious that the advice applies to articles being prepared for FAC too. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Stop being a pain in the arse" is typical of the abuse directed by Parrot of Doom and his supporters at PBS over several months. At first glance it has some meaning, but in fact it has almost none except for the intention of being derogatory. I may as well enter my opposition to the present draft, which criticizes only PBS and fails to recognize that there have been faults on all sides, and that any "disruption" has been collective and not individual. Epeefleche is clearly right that a majority of contributors in this RFC have formed a consensus against the conduct of PBS, but in my view that is on what could be called the "democratic" principle: Parrot of Doom has a support group and PBS doesn't. Wikipedia encourages the participants in conflict to join in a dispute resolution process in which they can play all kinds of roles, and that is fine, but there should be firmer rule to prevent that process from converting itself into a kangaroo court, formulating sanctions, with the complainants acting not only as witnesses and prosecutors (that would be fine), but also as the leaders of the jury and the judge. In disciplinary matters, something much more judicious is needed. ArbCom has its own faults, but it is more judicious than this. I am at a loss to know how anyone can take seriously a complainant/witness/prosecutor/juryman/judge who so late in the day is saying to the person accused "Stop being a pain in the arse". Moonraker2 (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose being a pain in the arse is better than being a plain idiot. But, that's democracy for you. Parrot of Doom 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help with this point, Parrot of Doom. Moonraker2 (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Still wikilawyering Moonraker2? Isn't the time for that also long gone? Perhaps you would care to put some sort of gloss on PBS's continuing absence from this discussion, contrary to what is expected of an administrator but entirely typical of what is being complained of here? Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
Do we want to retain the part about the neutral mentor, and if so can we think of anyone who might volunteer? SlimVirgin TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I'll tweak the draft above and get it on the page. We can discuss a mentor later if someone volunteers. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SV, I think it would be better to wait until the RfC closes and to let someone uninvolved handle this. PBS would be wholly within his rights to state that because he wasn't here when the above draft and now mentoring proposals were drawn up, that the whole thing be binned and started again, this time with him participating. It is a waste of time trying to draft things like this without him being present. If you turned up after an absence of several days and found a package deal like this waiting for you, what would your reaction be? Especially if the draft was drawn up by one of the certifiers of the RfC? Those who certify an RfC need to maintain some distance from the process and not try to micromanage it. If you and others want to collectively leave an open letter on PBS's talk page, that would be a way to communicate things outside of the RfC format, but it is better if that is done in a userspace page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The logical conclusion of your position is that anyone who wants to avoid criticism and potential sanctions simply has to disappear for a few weeks, and it'll all be forgotten. Especially if they're an administrator. Not good enough. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are repeating yourself. But to provide a more substantive response, I doubt this will be forgotten in a few weeks. Really. Too many people will remember this and point PBS to this RfC (me included). Several months, yes, you might have a point, but not several weeks. Having said that, I don't think there is anyway to watchlist an editor, so it is surprisingly easy to miss when someone resumes editing after a break (for whatever reason), and impossible of course to know if someone has not resumed editing, without checking. Anyway I promised myself I'd stay away from this RFC, so I'll try and stick to that this time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Carcharoth, I think it's clear that Philip is sitting out the RfC. If you look at one of his recent posts, he told someone he was tied up with another issue, and they should look at his talk page to see what. On his talk page was the RfC notice.


 * It's not unusual for RfCs to propose action, and to ask whether people endorse the proposal. It's just another form of outside view, not a formal closure. I'm still intending to ask someone uninvolved to close it and sum up consensus. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 01:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer not to have to keep repeating myself Carcharoth, but you just don't seem to be getting it, and I really can't help but wonder why. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It's troubling because admins are supposed to be respected editors (no comments from the peanut gallery) and are expected to be communicative-- sitting out an RFC should result in sanctions. I did an RFC/U on an admin who misused the tools once (on moi), and he never adequately responded either.  Seems as if admins are immune.  I don't think mentorship is likely to be effective in such a case-- it rarely is.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose closing unless he loses his admin tools. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That won't happen here, and in reality nothing will happen until and unless PBS returns to editing. Even then the evident hope is that everyone will have forgotten about this and it can still be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, I doubt this will be forgotten, though you are right that people going quiet is a tactic used by many (though sometimes offline events cause unscheduled wikibreaks as well, if the timing is particularly bad). You would be surprised how many people who are disputants in a topic area suddenly take wikibreaks when they see it heading to arbitration. I don't know what is the case here, and I'm not going to presume anything until we hear from PBS, but I would hope that some of those commenting here consider what it must be like to have something like this RfC to have to respond to. Unless you've had a user RfC certified for you (or been involved in the more formal methods of dispute resolution), it is difficult to realise the amount of pressure it can exert. And yes, I agree absolutely that admins should be responsive to concerns about use of their admin tools, and that all editors should be responsive to concerns about their editing. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And others commenting here might like to consider how it feels to be continually pestered by an obsessively clueless administrator who invents his own rules on "standard referencing", for instance. But of course it's more important to keep the misguided administrator than it is the editors he upsets. Malleus Fatuorum 02:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To respond to Carcharoth's concern: A "proposed solution" isn't anything like a "closing". No decision is being made here.  It's more like people kicking around ideas about what might work, perhaps a bit like the /Workshop page at ArbCom: anybody can add ideas that they believe would solve the dispute.  As at ArbCom, these proposed solutions would ideally be perfectly fair, agreeable to all parties, and completely solve the dispute.  In practice, ideas get proposed that range from pretty good to disastrous—but it's okay, because the community tends not to endorse the disastrous ones, and merely typing up your suggestion for a solution doesn't force anyone to agree to it.
 * Personally, I wouldn't have drafted the options on the talk page, but there's no rule against it, and it's sometimes helpful to hash out the wording before people start endorsing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't go ahead and add the proposed solution to the page because of Carcharoth's objection to me doing it as a co-certifier, but if anyone else wants to (that proposed solution or some other) that would be fine by me. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 16:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Gerardw (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tangent
Exactly how likely is it that the underlying dispute will be resolved when we have comments like "obsessively clueless administrator" being thrown around by partisan editors? The comments of Parrot of Doom and Malleus on this page are typical enough of the supposed "attempts at resolution" from their side of the argument. Malleus has a big and well-advertised chip on shoulder about admins; Malleus has made useless comments throughout, in my experience; Malleus has pushed for a vindictive and humiliating outcome to the RfC. As a spokesman I feel Malleus ought to be treated as completely compromised. The lack of civility on display vitiates the whole business. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. MF is not some Pied Piper leading the score of weak minded editors who certified/endorsed the RFC. Gerardw (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing Charles. Despite everything PBS has done, and despite the numbers of editors who agree with what's been said on the RFC, you're worried that PBS might be humiliated.  I'm more worried about the corrosive effect his actions have had.  He clearly is obsessive, and clueless (certainly on the subject of GFN). Parrot of Doom 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you guess what I think about you Charles, and your dishonest defence of an inadequate administrator? I'll give you a clue: it's not at all flattering. Malleus Fatuorum 15:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we drop the whole Malleus is a meanie tangent? Gerardw (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)