Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743

I've blocked Colonel Warden for his return to lying via edit summaries: notably a claim to have added sources as a justification for removing a prod when, in fact, neither that edit to the talk page nor the corresponding article edit had done anything of the sort. Once, I could overlook. I've warned him about it numerous times, and it was a major topic in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. There's no good faith explanation: he lies in edit summaries. There's no room in Wikipedia for this.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, his actions went against two of the conclusions by an independent closer of that RFC:

• "In general, the removal of prods and other tags in good faith is not a problem, but Colonel Warden is reminded that often those tags exist as a guide to help other editors to clean up articles, and good faith effort should be made to either resolve the issues noted in the tags, or if they cannot be found, to remove the tags only if they truly do not belong. If an issue cannot be resolved, it is OK to leave a tag in an article for another editor to deal with", as his removal of the prod was not accompanied by any effort to resolve this issue, only an effort to mislead other editors about such an effort
• "The use of edit summaries in an accurate manner is imperative, and where needed talk pages should be used to further explain complex actions or to engage in discussion where one's actions are contested.", as his edit summary was blatantly false.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Two not necessarily related statements: I wish you'd proposed this here, for someone else to consider a block. The combination of the talk page with the summary seems to prove your point for this case. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• For the benefit of non-admins, the Colonel's edit summary was "+ links to sources &c." He did put a {{notice|{{find}}}} template at the top of the talk page in that edit, which provides a set of links to find sources rather than actual links to an actual sources. 28bytes (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that deceptive? isn't the edit summary saying he's adding the notice that gives you the links to sources and citations? Not saying Warden isn't ever confusing in such stuff, but the act of de-prodding doesn't require sources, just a good faith belief that deletion would not be uncontroversial, unless this is some unusual case I can't see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see the edit, but perhaps this is similar to these edits to

List of Banyan trees in India (- prod + image &c.) and its talk page (+ links to sources &c.). Kanguole

02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Banyan trees edit was essentially the same as the one Kww blocked him for. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What does "&c." mean in that edit summary, otherwise its accurate unless he's saying he added sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"etc." It's the Colonel Warden code for "more material that he didn't deem worth summarizing". Yes, a direct parallel: a false claim to have provided sources, accompanying a removal of a prod for which he actually provided no justification aside from his personal belief that the "article has merit". The deprod alone could be argued to be in good faith, but the false edit summary belies that: he did not add links to sources, Milowent.—Kww(talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Caveat: I am very much not a fan of Colonel Warden; I think he's among the top three or four ARS jockeys who've given that outfit a bad name for inclusionism at all costs, between gaming the system, prod removal for the sake of removing prods, and changing their tune from XfD to XfD. That being said, I wouldn't draw any conclusion from that RfC. Plainly there was no consensus reaching even the level of vague admonition - and I'm disturbed by the implication that "acting in good faith" = "he means well" - and you really can't say that there were terms of the RfC to breach. Ravenswing 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• My magic 8 ball tells me that this block will be overturned within 24 hours with a massive chunk of time-wasting drama thrown into the pot as well. Controversial blocks should really be discussed before being implemented to avoid the block/unblock cycle and in any event Warden's recent poor behavior at the ARS RFC throwing labels around as marks of Cain with a real battleground mentality surely should have been included in any consideration of a block (see AN).
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  05:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Pending desysop of Kww I will note, for the record, that the edit summary says "+ links to sources &c.", rather than "+ links and sources &c.", and that the edit by Colonel Warden did, in fact, include links to potential sources--if any existed--via the {{notice|{{find}}}}. While the links for "secrets of a small town" did result in a large number of false positives, I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es that directly refer to the content of the now-deleted article. The assumption of bad faith by an admin of an editor with whom he has previously been in dispute is unconscionable: You are not just wrong, Kww, but you are egregiously wrong in a manner that I believe to be incompatible with your continuing to hold administrator privileges on Wikipedia. To be sure, I've blocked Colonel Warden for inappropriate use of edit summaries in the past, but this is not one of them. I expect that, upon reading this, you will unblock Colonel Warden with a sufficiently apologetic edit summary, and resign the tools yourself within 24 hours. If that doesn't happen, I will begin seeking your desysop'ing for this conduct. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  For the record, what appeared on the talk page of the de-prodded (and subsequently deleted) article based on {{notice|{{find}}}} was equivalent to:

  {{notice|{{find|Secrets of a small town}}}}

  Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, if someone says they added a "link to X", I would expect to see a link that when clicked will take me to X. Not a link that will take me to some search results page that may or may not actually have another link that, when clicked, will finally take me to X. And that "manually added ABC" part is worse: by this logic, it's not misleading to call a plain [1] link a "link to sources" - all you need to do is manually add the thing to search for. T. Canens (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  There was indeed a link added, via the find template, that does take one to sources. Page 2 of the Google News archive search does indeed find three relevant RS'es even without the ABC qualifier, which would have taken far more customizable code to include--excessive for a deprod edit, in my opinion. But that is pretty much missing the point: Kww has been involved in a number of disputes relating to Colonel Warden in the past, such that I would have expected he'd let someone else do the block per INVOLVED, and when shining a bit of light on the edits and edit summaries shows, at worst, an edit summary which can be misinterpreted, it becomes obvious why such discretion is the best idea. Remember, this is not an edit to the article saying he added sources or links, this is an edit to the talk page after he'd deprodded an article, which included links for other editors to find links to sources, something that isn't required at all in the

  WP:PROD process. Jclemens (talk

  ) 07:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Not taking a position on the block, but an editor with the experience of Colonel Warden surely knows that a link to a search query is not the same as a link to a source, and he really ought to stop labelling one as the other. Kanguole 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with this. Linking to Google is not the same thing as providing sources, which is what CW's edit summaries claimed. Reyk _YO! 10:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think, bearing in mind that (apparently) CW has had issues with similar before, a reminder to be extremely careful about not leaving ambiguously-worded and possibly-misleading edit summaries would be in order. Even if posting an edit summary which could be read as meaning "sources added" is entirely unintentional, it's something to be avoided, to remove any shadow of doubt. Pesky (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't disagree at all that a less ambiguous edit summary is appropriate ant optimal. I'm familiar with the "misleading edit summaries" Colonel Warden has previously been reprimanded for, and this isn't like those. He's almost in a a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation: by being more communicative on his PROD removals, he's opened up new ways in which his edit summaries could be misunderstood. If he'd ignored the RFC/U advice and simply removed PRODs without providing rationales, as is allowable by the process, he wouldn't have been subject to this criticism. I may be biased by my C programming background, though: a pointer to a pointer is still, itself, a pointer, so I have no problem with understanding how Colonel Warden might have chosen to phrase things as he did. At any rate, the proper way to clarify such edit summaries would be via the talk page, I'd expect. Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, the edit summary was not ambiguous. The meaning of "+ links to sources" is clear, and it's clearly different from "added links to queries that may (or may not) yield sources". Colonel Warden surely knows that. (Don't you?) Kanguole 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  As a C programmer myself, I can tell you that that comparison is ludicrous. You ought to know that "int **" and "int *" are different types. A link to google is not a link to a source, whereas CW claimed to have linked to sources. I'm not the type of person who deliberately lets people like the Colonel pull the wool over my eyes with that kind of slippery wikilawyering. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Eh, you're trying to assume what his edit summary meant when, as Jclemens says above, he likely meant adding the Find template. Therefore, the edit summary wasn't deceptive, kinda overturning the whole point of the block in the first place. Are we done here? I don't even consider this incident something of merit. At the very least, you need something on the level of moving tags to the bottom of the page. At least. Silverseren^C 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't realize the supposed deceptive edit summary was to the talk page and not to the article proper. Seriously, Kww? You're already involved in the first place, considering past history with Warden, and you use this pretty much useless "incident" to block? I can fully understand why Jclemens is calling for a de-sysop. Silverseren^C 08:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders. He's done this kind of thing time and time again, using deceptive edit summaries and removals of tags without doing anything to correct the underlying problem. Was this single edit blockable? Of course not. Was this edit a continuation of the pattern of deceptiveness and bad faith editing demonstrated in WP:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden? Certainly. My involvement with Colonel Warden has to deal solely with his misbehaviour. Has it been ongoing? Certainly. Has it been lengthy? Certainly, but that is because he works and edits to disrupt the deletion process, and, so long as he has other admins covering for him, this will never stop. His RFC came to a standstill because of apologists that tried to interpret falsehoods as misunderstandings. They interpreted blatant misrepresentation of source contents as innocent mistakes. If an editor has a five year long pattern of being a poor misunderstood soul that can't seem to properly express the reason why his edits don't line up with what the summaries claim they are, it's beyond simple mistake.

As for bringing it to ANI first, all that would have happened is that Jclemens would have protected him in advance instead of later, and the heat of the ANI thread would be no different. Desysop me for blocking an intentionally deceitful editor? I hope it will be hard to find an editor that will even unblock an intentionally deceitful editor.—Kww(talk) 10:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Jclemens, your comment above "I've personally verified that by adding information relevant to the show (I used '"Secrets of a small town" ABC', adding the network name in the Google News archive link) does result in a number of paywalled RS'es " is a complete red herring. That's not what Colonel Warden did. He added a bog-standard template and a canned statement that said not to put a prod back on the article because he believed the article to "have merit".—Kww(talk) 11:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So you're criticizing him because he gave a rationale (not required by PROD), and added an alert box with standard resources for finding sources (again, not required by PROD). Hmm, interestingly enough, being more communicative about his de-prod reasons seems something entirely in line with the closer's suggestions at the RFC which you cite as him having violated. Also, neither revised criticism is commensurate with his edit summary being a premeditated falsification designed to deceive proponents of article deletion. At the time the edit with the disputed summary was made to the talk page the article in question was not facing any deletion process: As you can see by reviewing his contributions for 8 March, he first undid the PROD, then responded pretty briefly to TPH's query about it, added the rationale and disputed edit summary, and promptly afterwards replied to TPH's follow-up. If anything, this demonstrates Colonel Warden's being responsive to queries about his de-prodding, although his second response was far more helpful than his first. Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and re: the assertion that I would have shown up to defend Colonel Warden had he been discussed here before a block, that is ironically false. I don't watch ANI, but I do have Colonel Warden's talk page watchlisted, and have had it listed since I first blocked him ~18 months ago. Had you brought it up here first, I would not have noticed immediately upon returning to my watchlist, and may never have done so. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unavailable until about 2PM EST. I'll return to this thread at that time.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block. It is not necessary to provide sources when removing a PROD - anyone can contest a PROD at any time without having to make any improvements to the article at all, and the next step is to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. As for the edit summary being a "lie", I think it's sufficiently ambiguous to warrant some good faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and why are we blocking someone now for something that happened 8 days ago? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block - per Boing! said Zebedee. I also feel that I must add that in my experience Colonel Warden is an editor who does a great deal of interesting, high quality editing across a wide array of topics, and is also one of the most decent and helpful editors in the project.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)]
• Oppose - as per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. Kww, that action was unacceptable. Didn't you know that there is something known as a talk page of a user to discuss their edits and what they can use to correct it in the future? Blocking him is just gonna him a hard time and might make him leave the project. As for a summary being a lie, meh, If I was you, i'd assume some good faith and if it were a long-term pattern, I would have proceeded with warnings. And Kww
  ^{What did I do this time?}
  14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment - Some of the discussion above seems to be going above and beyond on the assumption of good faith, making the claim that Colonel Warden was not claiming to have added sources to the talk page when he merely added a search link. In my run-in on this issue, Colonel claimed, "This and the other topics are best discussed on their talk pages so that other editors may participate. I have provided some links to sources there." Yes,
  technically the wording does not directly claim to have added sources, but the implication was clear enough that I asked about it (and noted several cases where there wasn't even the search link: "The articles are not being discussed and you have not provided sources (you provided search links Talk:Natural_cleaning_product, the last discussion by other editors there was 3 years ago). There is no discussion whatsoever (and no sources from you) at Talk:Detection. At Talk:Dol Amroth again, no sources from you and no discussion in over 2 years. Talk:Locating has no sources from you and no discussion whatsoever. Again, you didn't add sources at Talk:Lorentz invariance in loop quantum gravity and the last discussion is 6 years ago. Talk:Mildenhall Cricket Club does not exist, so it certainly has no sources from you or discussion by others." Colonel ignored the issue (as well as several attempts to discuss non-admin closures of AfDs on shaky "Speedy Keep" claims), removing the topics with the comment, "(wipe rant &c.)
  ".

On the other side of the issue, we have a developing assumption of bad faith, directed at Kww. Yeah, there is reasonable room for discussion on blocking before discussing the issue here. However, Kww brought the issue here for discussion immediately after the block -- there was no attempt whatsoever to avoid discussing the issue. Yeah, I was slightly surprised to see the block come down seemingly out of no immediate cause (though I can certainly see cause for a "Wake up!" block on Colonel). So I can see someone hitting Kww with a wet minnow. Desysoping, however, is as out of scale as taking Colonel out behind the barn and putting him down with a rifle.

IMO (FWIW), Colonel needs something larger than a wet trout: the inclusionist stance is what it is, the failure to explain why an article should be kept (unexplained removal of prods, wikilawyer-ism "Speedy Keep" arguments, &c.) are annoying. Attempts to claim that ze was somehow being "helpful" with the search links strike me as inconsistent with the rest of Colonel's actions. -

talk

) 14:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to add sources (or make any improvements at all) to contest and remove a PROD, so all this talk of "he didn't add sources" is irrelevant. That he added a search link is a bonus - he had no obligation to do that whatsoever. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But since he said that he added links to sources (in this edit summary), it is reasonable to expect that he actually did so. Jakew (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It would probably be more precise to say that added "links to find sources", or "links to source searches", but he did provide resources to source the article on the talk page after his de-prod, something that is not required. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's see if I've got this right, Jakew. CW de-PRODed an article, which he was perfectly entitled to do without making any changes to the article itself or having to help look for sources in any way, and he then added a search link to *the Talk page* that would actually help people looking for sources (which is more helpful than is mandated) - yet because the accompanying edit summary was perhaps ambiguous, you think think he deserved an indefinite block? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the legitimacy of the block itself; I'm just pointing out why it's relevant that he didn't add sources. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

and he worded his edit summary in such a way as to make it look like he provided information which he didn't exactly provide. That was what the block was for. If I start removing prods from articles with edit summaries like "de-prod, I'm wearing blue pants today!" or "de-prod, this article has 100 sources!" when there are none or very few, perhaps irrelevant ones, I will expect to be blocked for misleading edit summaries or perhaps pointy editing. He added a template which linked to searches which may provide sources. There is no evidence that he followed any of those links (if he did, why didn't he list the good sources themselves?) before removing the prod. As such his reason for removing the prod was spurious and his edit summary misleading at best.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) What I would like to know is this. The deprod happened on the 8th. Since then it spent a week at AFD where I closed it as "delete" with no opposition on the 16th. A day later CW is blocked for an action he took on the 8th in an already deleted article. Kww, what I want to know is this, exactly how was this bought to your attention and what ongoing disruption was this block meant to prevent? If this sort of thing is still happening couldn't you have found an example more recent in an article that still exists? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  This post documents that the block occurred after the talk page was deleted:

• 2012-03-16T00:21:01 Ron Ritzman (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Secrets of a Small Town (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of a Small Town)
• 2012-03-17T02:11:31 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Return to deceptive edit summaries: quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith)
  

Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. On request by CW I've userfied the article in question. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn and block KWW for blatant and outrageous disruption. What arb com may want to do is their lookout; we should do what we can. What Kww should have done in this situation if he thought a block necessary was propose it here, and, if the consensus supported it, have someone else impose it. If there ever was an involved editor on subjects relevant to deletion and AfD, it's Kww, and the long lasting disagreements cannot have been under the impression he was a neutral party. Col. Warden's arguments are sometimes a little far-fetched, but this is best dealt with by refuting them--as was done in the AfD that gave rise to this. If someone thinks they are outrageous enough to block, it can't be someone who inevitably opposes him. And I would regard this as an exceptionally bad block no matter who did it. Blocking over what is said at AfD is best reserved for true disruption--there is normally a great liberty of speech here. In this particular case, the quality of the block is particularly debatable. It is not usually good practice to link to the results of a search engine, but it is occasionally necessary when the material cannot be cited otherwise. Certainly in AfD we often cite the results of a search engine to show there are multiple references available , or to show that there are no good references available. In the heat of a time-limited debate, to add such a link to the article in question is not unreasonable--one would convert it later--and to say one has added a link in these circumstances is not an untruth. And Col. w. indicated it was a link to sources, which actually makes everything totally proper If we start blocking far untruths at AfD , we would equally blocks those people who say falsely there are no Reliable sources, or that something isn't notable if the community decides otherwise. I will not overturn the block myself, because I'm as involved with Kww as he is with Col. W. However, if Kww seriously thinks he was not too closely involved to block the Col, then I am not too closely involved to block him. The situation is exactly parallel. There is only one thing that could have saved the situation for Kww, which is to unblock immediately and never do anything of the sort again--anyone can do something rashly. I'd say unblock and apologize, except that there's no point in forced apologies. But that Kww actually has the lack of judgment to defend his action shows that more is needed. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, neither kww or CW participated in the AFD in question which I closed as a unanimous "delete" 2 days ago. What he did was "drop out of the sky" and block him yesterday for something that happened before the article was nominated for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Block per Boing! said Zebedee and Rangoon11. From my experience with CW in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious coercion in Israel, I'll say he is a prolific contributor who edits in good faith, well-aware of policies and guidelines, and aims to build a good encyclopedia. An indefinite block of an established editor without seeking any community consensus is unacceptable. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose block of Warden. If it was anyone else, would Kww be acting that way? I think he does have it in for certain people and should be desysop. Dream Focus 15:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn or shorten block While it is certainly unhelpful to leave unclear edit summaries when removing prods, an indefinite block seems like overkill, IMHO. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block of the Colonel. I've had run-ins with the Colonel before, as both Kevin and the Colonel know, and in past debates I've usually come down on the side of Kevin. I must not have been paying attention on two occasions: the Colonel's RfC, where I would have voted for action against the Colonel, and Kevin's RfA, where I would have voted to support. For the first reason, I wouldn't dream of blocking the Colonel (unless something weird was going on, like his spouting racist comments or draping penises over people's user pages--apparently it's a happening thing), and for the second reason I find myself in a bind here: I think this was not a good block to have been performed by him. I like to claim, regularly, that this "involved" thing is overblown, but in this case I think it is not. I won't support a desysoping, but this was a bad block. Sorry Kevin. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

• Your scrutiny is invited. Spartaz, you were correct, at least partly--the dramah is already here. I have never overturned someone else's block before, but I will now, for two reasons:

1. In my opinion, User:Kww is way too involved with the Colonel to have made this block. An indefinite block of a longtime (albeit controversial) editor for a controversial reason (not outright vandalism, etc) must be done with at least some sort of consensus.
2. Kww's rationale, "quite apparent this editor will never edit in good faith", is not correct: such is not apparent to me at all.

I made the decision to unblock after reading over all the comments here, and while it's a bit early still, there is a clear consensus that this was not a good block. I don't want to move towards taking the bit from Kww: I think the block was a mistake, not a hanging offense. But that's just me. Kevin, I'm sorry to go against you, but I know that at least I can't be accused of having a long history of supporting the Colonel. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drmies, I think you've done the right thing here. I'm surprised that Kww expected that his actions here would have been perceived as uninvolved. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Paul Erik, unblocking was the appropriate action here. Kww, I must say, I came to this discussion without any strong opinion of the Colonel either way, and your
  WP:BATTLEFIELD response to those of us commenting ("I'm saddened that, as usual, Colonel Warden has defenders") is extremely disappointing. Your further comments in that post give the distinct impression that the nominal reason for blocking the Colonel (that he uses an edit summary of "links to sources" rather than a more accurate one of "links to find sources") is simply a pretext for sticking it to someone you don't like. 28bytes (talk
  ) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support of unblock - but awaiting further evidence of a pattern of abuse of admin tools and/or diffs to other measures of
   ? 
  17:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For those that ask "why 8 days", it's because it's been a while since I did a spot check of Colonel Warden's behaviour. It only took a few minutes to find his first false edit summary, and that happpened to be the one that had been mentioned on his talk page. For anyone that actually monitors the Colonel, it shouldn't be surprising that his actions could, if one squints really hard and apply massive doses of good faith, be interpreted as only accidentally or unintentionally misleading. I'm absolutely certain that his edits and descriptions are completely intended to mislead, and he carefully leaves just enough ambiguity that, when caught, he will be able to claim that it was just a misunderstanding. It's not a misunderstanding: he's a smart man, and knows that we have admins that will use any flicker of doubt to allow him to continue his misbehaviour. It is quite apparent to me that the Colonel considers being truthful as less important than having articles kept. If you wish me to call the "non-collaborative editing" as opposed to "not being a good faith editor", I'll accept the semantic distinction. The truth remains simple: he takes steps intended to disrupt the deletion process, doesn't honestly describe his edits, misrepresents his own actions, and has been caught several times falsifying references. His actions show absolutely no sign of improvement over the years.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly how these "false" edit summaries caused damage? Silverseren^C 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, false edit summaries can be very bad. The most extreme case would be replacing an article with a giant penis with the edit summary of "spelling" and marking it a minor. A bot would likely catch that though. A better example would be PRODing an article with the edit summary of "grammar" and marking it as minor hoping to get an article deleted without anybody noticing. (which is why I always check article histories before deleting uncontested prods). What Kww is claiming CW does with edit summaries is possible but unlikely because CW, or anybody else, is not required to provide one to justify a PROD removal. He could use the edit summary "bing bing tiddle bong" if he wanted to. That's why, at least in that case, I'm more inclined to believe it was a mistake or misunderstanding. There is plain and simply no incentive for CW to "lie" when removing a PROD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that. I was referring specifically to the edit summaries we're discussing here, not anything else. Silverseren^C 19:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is basically the subject that I was bringing up below. To be clear, I don't disagree with the thinking that you're espousing above, Ron. Vandals using deceptive edit summaries is certainly nothing to applaud. However, aside from the fact that nobody is claiming that Warden is actually a vandal (as far as I can tell... unless dePROD'ing is thought of as vandalism by some), I think that it's worth mentioning that there is no document that I'm aware of which states that deceptive edit summaries are in and of themselves problematic. I think that is the only real unusual aspect of this thread.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Lying undermines the basis of collaborative editing.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's it? That's your entire reason? Nothing to do with vandalism or anything like that, just the spirit of collaborative editing? And you blocked for that? Silverseren^C 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Collaborative editing relies on accurate representations of identity and position. The reason I come down so hard on socking is because it is deceitful. This is just another aspect of deceitful behaviour.—Kww(talk) 18:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Any comment on the concern that you're not objective enough about the Colonel to be blocking him? 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a myth that

WP:INVOLVED somehow requires an exclusionist admin such as myself to go beg an inclusionist admin to block a disruptive inclusionist. I think that's the reason that people object to me, as an individual, placing this block. I would block any editor that I believed to be intentionally deceitful, whether the motivation behind the deceit is to add material or remove it. People are also getting wrapped up in the terms of this one edit. I'm not looking at it that way: I see it as simply another step in a long-term pattern of deceit.—Kww(talk

) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, while I admire your dedication to honesty, I'd ask you to re-read the comments above from various folks above (with consideration to

 ? 

18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I won't undo Drmies's unblock. I don't know how to deal with the Colonel so long as he has protection from people that believe his useful contributions outweigh deceit.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Consider also that while multiple editors, myself included, have found Colonel Warden's edit summary phrasing suboptimal, or even inaccurate, there is little to no support for your interpretation that his edit summary was "deceitful". Your repeated use of that phrase, attacking Colonel Warden's motivation, may be construed as a personal attack. Please tone down the rhetoric and admit that your interpretation isn't the only possible interpretation of his edit summaries. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If this was once, it would be "suboptimal". He's been subjected to RFCs on this very topic, where the consensus of the RFC was that his edit summaries were extremely problematic, yet, it continues. It's difficult for me to justify my block without stating the reason for it. If I did not believe that he was intentionally doing wrong, I wouldn't have blocked him. "Deceit" isn't rhetoric: it's the core justification for the block. That you are able to examine a multi-year history of this problem and still use words like "suboptimal" is a big part of the problem we have in dealing with the Colonel. You've been around long enough, and are in a position that requires sufficient detachment, that you should be able to look at this long term pattern of misbehaviour and recognize that it is intentional. I'm not certain whether you are denying that it is intentional or saying that even if intentional, it doesn't justify a block.—Kww(talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I am still able to AGF that this is an error, based on his attempts to expand his communications and the opportunity to make an error while doing so. The various reasons have been articulated above: the content wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made, the edit summary wasn't egregiously at odds with the edit made, the edit was made on the talk page where sources (if any) would need to be inspected and transferred to the article to have any effect on future deletion discussions, no one had pointed out the ambiguity in the edit summary to Colonel Warden before... the reasons go on and on. If anything, your reasoning is more and more problematic that more you expound upon it; you appear incapable of or unwilling to evaluate the edit summary in a detached and neutral manner--you're importing past disputes into your interpretation of this action. I would encourage you to reread carefully the posts by those who normally agree with you on such issues but are finding fault with your interpretation in this case. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wasn't subject to a deletion process at the time the edit was made"? Only because he had removed the prod while providing no explanation as to why.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you asserting that he was somehow required to provide an explanation? This is a truly problematic complaint, because elsewhere in this thread you note that his explanation (in the edit with the summary you find problematic) is simply a "bog-standard template and a canned statement". You really can't have it both ways: If he's using PROD, Colonel Warden is not required by policy to provide an explanation, and any explanation is more than the minimum effort required on his part. Likewise, if he provided a boilerplate explanation on the talk page, it's rather strange that you're berating him for having provided no explanation. Would you like to take a try at explaining all of this one more time in an internally consistent manner? Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. His edit summary on the primary article edit was a removal of a tag without justification. If you look to the edit summary on the talk page to see if he had a justification, the talk page edit provided the summary of his reason: an unsupported personal belief that the article had merit, which skates by as a reason under policy, despite the fact that he has been cautioned in the past that his removal of tags without justification is problematic. His edit summary for that edit to the talk page was false: it indicated that he had provided links to sources. He did not. He provided his own completely unsupported opinion, sans sourcing.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As to the "canned statement", he makes the same misrepresentation multiple times: [2][3][4][5][6]. This is simply an extension of long-standing problematic behaviour.—Kww(talk) 21:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, let me be 100% clear here:

1)Are you, or are you not, asserting that there is any problematic behavior in Colonel Warden's removal of the PROD here: deprod. In other words, are you implying that the RfC somehow restricted Colonel Warden from using

WP:TC

.

2) Is there any evidence that anyone else had informed Colonel Warden that his canned statement is in any way problematic? Are you willing to acknowledge that if the canned statement was created in good faith (even though unclear or inaccurate), there is no particular evidence of bad faith by reusing it? Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

1)His deprod, while flying in the face of the consensus reached at his RFC, met the letter of policy.

2)I no longer see any reason to extend any assumption of good faith to Colonel Warden with regard to false or misleading edit summaries. If this had been an editor with a different history, I would view it in a different light.—Kww(talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it wasn't about this one specific edit/summary (which in itself looked perfectly fine to me), but was instead for a lengthy period of alleged deceitful behavior which you knew would be controversial, and you have had significant disagreement with CW yourself in the past, then it seems clear to me that you should have brought the problem here, providing diffs for a sufficient number of examples of the alleged deceit, and sought a community consensus, rather than indef block yourself while providing a very lame example of "the last straw". I think that was a poor misjudgment, and I think it is disappointing that after seeking a review here, your response is to really not listen but to continue with an adversarial attitude towards community consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've simply explained my reason for having blocked in the first place. I have not attempted to reinstate the block, nor have I directed any criticism towards the admin that unblocked him.—Kww(talk) 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock not quite sure that a desysop of KWW is justified for one such incident, but would be if a pattern emerged. Block is totally out of order both for the 8 day gap, and its stated reason, and for being an isolated example. Even if the RFC had closed with a requirement that Col Warden not do such deprods then after this time an isolated example would justify a note on his talkpage not a block. We should remember that the Colonel Warden RFC failed to come to consensus because some of the proposers tried to to use it to create a defacto policy that the removal of prods requires a rationale to be stated. That view was pretty thoroughly rejected, the RFC became contentious partly because it is deeply inappropriate to try and change policy by criticising some for following policy; An RFC on a proposal to make t more difficult to decline prods would have been a less contentious way to change policy, and I'm pretty sure such a proposal would have been rejected. Suggest KWW unblock Col Warden and apologise to him, then consider himself involved re Col Warden in future. ϢereSpielChequers 18:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Kww can't unblock - Drmies already has. Peridon (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kww, I did not comment here as part of some process of being a "defender" of Col Walden nor to provide him "protection". Please consider the possibility that observers of your actions here really do, on balance and on review of the previous RfC, find the commentaries of JClemens and others above as more compelling than your arguments justifying your block. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock – I would have unblocked also, but another administrator has already gotten to it. In any case, this is a situation in which blocking alone will not resolve. This needs more discussion as to what to do, keeping in mind Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden. Given that the RfC has apparently failed, this may need to be escalated to Arbitration, in which the Arbitration Committee may potentially issue bans and desysops given what has happened. --MuZemike 22:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• oppose I'll be the lone voice of dissent here I guess. While we're all hanging kww out to dry, remember as pointed out above, CW was taken to task before for misleading edit summaries. As we've got an argument above about whether or not he "lied", it's clear he didn't exactly tell the truth. Could you imagine the reaction on an AfD if someone said "Keep - Lot's of sources on Horatio Smith out there [7]"? Linking to a google search is clearly not the same as linking to actual sources. He linked to the potential of sources, not the sources themselves. Who knows if he even checked any of those links to see if sources existed in any of those searches in the first place, and if he did do that, why didn't he just list those sources? So for someone who has had issues with prods and edit summaries in the past, I would expect them to be hyper-aware of how they are doing them now if they were truly trying to improve and work with the community. His edit summary at best is misleading, if not a lie. The fact that it was 8 days ago is irrelevant if kww believed the behaviour was likely to continue.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock - What a surprise, another attempt to kneecap a prominent ARS member... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• History I've been adding the {{
  find
  }} template to talk pages in this way for years now. Here's some examples going back three years:

March 2011 : Academic achievement

March 2010 : Governance, risk management, and compliance

March 2009 : Enid Marx

So, to me, updating the talk page in this way is a routine action like adding a project template and I have done this hundreds of times. The habit was already old at the time of my RfC/U and don't recall any complaint about it there. Kww and others may just be noticing this for the first time but they've had plenty of opportunity to comment on this before. The idea that it's some kind of devious deception seems quite preposterous. What is the supposed ill-gotten gain? Isn't the result of the action quite obvious and transparent? Who am I supposed to be hoodwinking and how is it that they haven't complained before? Warden (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to the specific sources you added to that article?--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't on the article, this whole thing was *on the Talk page* - you don't add sources to the article by editing the Talk page, so there is no possibility of any rational editor thinking that making an edit *on the Talk page* was adding a source *to the article*. There was no edit summary anywhere that suggested that CW had added anything *to the article*. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine, can you point to any specific sources he added to the talk page of the article? with this edit [8]. "Links to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources. As I pointed out above, if I was at an AfD and said "Here are some sources on the subject [9]" how well do you think that would go over? He did not directly link any sources. Yet his edit summary clearly made it look as if he did. That's a false edit summary and as CW has pointed out he did that intentionally it can only be a lie.--

Crossmr (talk

) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

And if I said "The moon is made of carrots" I'd be lying too. CW never said "Here are some sources on the subject". He added the {{

find}} template to an article Talk page, which he has been doing since 2009, and used the same edit summary he has always used, and nobody has complained about it before. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 11:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

He said "link to sources" should we assume they would be sources for another subject if not the subject of the talk page? Should we not assume that there would actually be sources linked? or do we want to starting getting into the definition of "to" or perhaps "link" or even "sources"? Just because no one caught that edit before doesn't mean it's ok. By that logic if anyone can get away with something once, that means they can do it indefinitely because no one complained the first time. So once again: Did he or did he not link to actually sources in that edit? His edit summary indicates he did, but I can't seem to find any actual sources linked. I see a search linked that may or may not contain actualy sources, but no evidence that he actually looked at any of those sources and verified if anyone of them were relevant to the article in question (at which point why not just link them from the talk page as an example, since he took the time to type out his reason). The linguistic dancing here trying to excuse what obviously is a false edit summary is approaching the absurd. here is an honest edit summary "adding a template with links to searches people could use to try and find sources on the subject". "link to sources" would indicate a direct link to actual sources, and to this point no one has demonstrated that happened.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, seeing as it hadn't been a problem every time he used it for the preceding 3 years, when you saw it and were confused by it, you could have

assumed good faith and asked him what he meant, or (assuming you looked at the actual diff) you could have politely suggested he modify that summary in future. How about that for an idea? Or do you prefer an indefinite block as a first response? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 12:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First response? Would this be the first time that CW has had issues with his edit summaries?--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fascinating So we have evidence here that Colonel Warden has been referring to using the find template on the talk page as links to sources since 2009, which predates the RfC/U, and yet no one has complained about it until now, when Kww found it and decided that it merited an immediate indef? Does anyone else see a problem with how the feedback on the accuracy of the edit summary was delivered? Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something escaped notice doesn't mean it's de facto permitted. It means someone didn't notice it, but the general behaviour was noticed and previously brought up.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 07:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• So do you think that a talk page edit with a summary of "links to sources" was such an obviously wrong description of adding a template with a bunch of Google links (that actually do lead to sources in this case) that Colonel Warden should be blocked on the basis of past edit summary transgressions? If so, then your argument is internally consistent, though I disagree with it. If not, then wouldn't a warning have been the first, best step to take when a less-than-optimal or erroneous edit summary was discovered? Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Unblock per my comment above. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 02:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be discussed more

Another thing I didn't notice at the time, but Ron Ritzman pointed out above. The edits in question by Colonel Warden were made 8 days prior to the block. Regardless of the reason for the incident, I find this fact to be completely unacceptable. Silverseren^C 17:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Um... Last I checked edit summaries aren't required at all, unless something has changed recently. So what's the story with blocking over edit summaries? I don't really care about Warden being blocked, or KWW's admin status, but... whether or not editors are being blocked over (otherwise normal) edit summaries is kinda important.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• He was blocked for attempting to deceive people via edit summaries. That's a different thing than omitting one.—Kww(talk) 18:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kww seems to have appointed himself as a "monitor" of Col. Warden. I suggest he not be allowed to interact with Col. Warden at all. If a monitor is needed, a neutral editor in this discussion could be nominated. Yopienso (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Agree an interaction ban is needed. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Is there a neutral editor? I wouldn't block CW even though I recognize he does use deceptive edit summaries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Give DreamFocus the bit. Seriously, I think there's plenty who are uninvolved enough to block the Colonel if a block is warranted. While all this delete/include drama takes up much of the airtime here, not every admin has a stake in it or a history with it. On the other hand, I can think of one editor who will probably put me in the pro-ARS camp for my unblock of the Colonel, but I can live with that. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - KWW's offer not to block Col W again as preferable to any interaction ban. (I tweaked my position after Kww offered this position voluntarily)Youreallycan 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - full interaction ban - it's clear from KWW's multiple broad-brush comments above about deceitfulness etc that they have very strong, very fundamental, negative feelings towards the Colonel. Combined with the misjudged block itself I struggle to see how KWW can be relied upon to objectively judge Colonel's behaviour in the future. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole affair has surprised and concerned me. I suggested the interaction ban, but I don't support JClemens' quick move to desysop Kww. And CW apparently does need watching. Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't support any attempt to desysop Kww at this point.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to agree not to block him again, I can voluntarily do that. If the consensus is that I should have gone through the RFC process again, please don't put a ban in place that prevents me from doing so in the future.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Kww your voluntary agreement here is great, and a wise move. CW should also agree (I think) never to use ambiguously-worded edit summaries, with particular reference to any edit summaries to do with sources. Jclemens, I really think calling for a desysop of Kww is totally OTT. Pesky (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think the issue here is one of you agreeing to not do anything specific: the issue I have is one of sufficiently poor judgment that I do not believe you should be an admin. My desired outcome remains as it initially was: you to acknowledge your error, apologize to Colonel Warden for the inappropriate block, and resign the tools yourself. While an RfC/U may have more support than a straight-up desysop'ing, I maintain that the level of involvement and battlefield mentality expressed in this thread are appropriate cause for desysop'ing. If there is support for an interaction ban, as it appears here, the real question is whether an admin should maintain his bit if he's under that sort of a ban. In Cirt's case, the arbitration committee narrowly decided that he should not, but this year's committee has a different composition and is not bound by past precedents, so they may well decide to leave your bit intact--even when I'm not recused on a matter, the committee as a whole favors less strict remedies than I prefer a good bit of the time. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1-week block  Only a diety knows if someone is telling a lie, and Kww claims to have this ability.  I have no previous interactions with Kww, and since this editor is an admin, chances are that there is a good history that predicts the editor is capable of contributing to Wikipedia.  Perhaps it is time for a 1-week vacation.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know any other way to say this, but that's ridiculous. Plenty of people can know if another person is lying. If you call a friend and ask what they're up to and they say they're at work but you can see them across the street in a cafe, you don't need to be a deity to know they're lying. If someone says they added sources and all they added was a template to various searches, its easy to see they've lied.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 23:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between evidence of "intent to deceive" and the intent itself.  Just because someone says that they are at work when they are at home, doesn't mean that they had intent to deceive, they might have answered the phone while taking medication, and really thought they were at work.  The logic of your statement that uses a definition unlike the one being refuted falls in the category of a

equivocation, which as defined in our article, "consists in employing the same word in two or more senses".  Your conclusion that my statement was "ridiculous" does not follow from the premises and is as well an escalation.  The point remains that an administrator on Wikipedia should not call another editor a liar.  Unscintillating (talk

) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying CW was on drugs? Because linking to a search which may or may not contain sources vs providing actual links to real checked sources could possibly only be confused if one was heavily medicated. The fact is, CW claimed he linked to sources when he did no such thing. He's also stated that he's done it before and should be well aware of what it is is he's doing and what it means.--

Crossmr (talk

) 07:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict plus losing the thread by getting on the wrong noticeboard) Like Yopienso, I was surprised by the way this blew up. I was coming back in to suggest a voluntary refraining from involvement by Kww, but am happy to see that he beat me to it. I also don't support a move to desysop Kww - and if he makes a voluntary agreement, I don't feel that it should be necessary. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any interaction ban or other sanction of KWW. There is simply no need. What we have here is a situation where an editor has made a number of misleading edit summaries, and this after an RFC/U on the very same topic. KWW has made the inference (IMO correctly) that the editor in question is a chronic liar because, after the RFC/U, there is no possibility of this being a mistake or oversight. KWW has decided (again correctly) that this sort of deliberate deceit, combined with CW's constant battleground behaviour, makes this a less congenial working environment. I wouldn't have gone for the indef right off the bat- two weeks would have made the point juts fine- but I think that there was nothing wrong with KWW's interpretation of the situation, his good judgment, or his good faith. A community-imposed interaction ban or a desysop are simply not tenable options at this point. Reyk _YO! 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Warden explained above that that edit summary has been something he's always used and it's always meant the same thing and no one has brought it up to him before as being a problem, including in the RfC/U. On the other hand, we have Kww, who has exhibited significant battleground mentality in his responses to people above, not even considering the fact that he is clearly involved when having anything to do with Warden, because of past interactions. Silverseren^C 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oy and a disgusted trout to several editors for this whole nonsensical episode. For the sake of clarity, I don't support the block on Colonel Warden, I do support the strongly worded warning about CW's misleading edit summaries (and note that this is nothing new), I don't support de-adminning Kww, and I support a restriction on Kww's use of admin tools in regards to CW or any other member of the ARS. If Kww notes another problematic situation, Wikipedia will not explode while the issue is discussed on AN/I. There is already a rough consensus that Kww doesn't qualify as an uninvolved admin, and that should stop any use of the tools on CW or some of the more enthusiastic "inclusionists". There also appears to be a rough consensus that CW's edit summaries are misleading (at best), and that simply linking to a Google search is not a suitable substitute for adding actual references. JClemens's call for de-sysopping is a case of using a
  flyswatter that makes me regret my vote supporting him for the Arbitration Committee; it is an overreaction to a perceived crisis worthy of a (U.S.) governmental entity. </rant> Horologium (talk)
  01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. You are aware that CW added the link to the Google search (ie {{
  find}}) only on the Talk page, and not in the actual article, aren't you? Even when an article is sourced, it does seem like a useful thing to have on a Talk page to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 01:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. However, while it may be a useful thing to have on a talk page, it doesn't mean the same thing as de-prodding an article with the edit summary of "adding sources". Horologium (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen where he de-PRODed an article with the edit summary "adding sources" - I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I don't think anyone has shown us an example of it, so if you could do that I'd be grateful to see it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't do that, because the diffs that Kww linked to originally are from a deleted article, so I guess he only meant for other admins to be able to look at them. Silverseren^C 02:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin - if the claimed edit is there, please show me it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I found that he had it userified with the history attached. Here it is. And I see he only said remove prod on the article page. The talk page comment this is all about is this one. I honestly can't see what the deception is. He said he added a link to sources, which he certainly did and has always done it that way. Silverseren^C 02:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you show me which sources it was that he linked to?--

Crossmr (talk

) 07:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources available in that search? Do you want me to like get them from the search for you? Silverseren^C 08:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh... so you're saying he linked to a search not to the actual sources themselves? That's interesting, because what I actually understood from his edit summary was that he was actually linking to the sources themselves. I assume then that every search result was a relevant source for the article and that he verified it before linking to that search and claiming he was linking sources? I mean who would blindly link to a search without bothering to go through it to verify there were actually sources there before indicating that they were actually providing links to usable sources? But then..if he did that, why not just link those actual found and verified sources directly on the talk page?--

Crossmr (talk

) 09:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As has generally been accepted here, adding {{

find}} to an article *Talk* page is a useful thing to do. It is not meant to be a static list of sources at that time, it is meant to be there as a dynamic tool for future editors to use when further searching for new sources. You know, something new needs to be added, and a quick link to a categorised set of Google results is handy - that kind of thing? Yes, it would be great to do an even better thing too, like unearthing good sources and adding them to the article, but the absence of doing an even better thing is not a valid criticism of doing a merely good thing. But even putting that all aside, what do you actually want to come out of this Crossmr? If you think some admin action is needed, just come out and tell is what it is rather than continually complaining about CW without saying what you want to happen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No one said adding find wasn't helpful, but your strawman really does little more than show how weak your argument is. The issue is over a false edit summary. The fact that the edit itself does not match what he did on the page. And outside of certain people attempting to rewrite the definition of "link" "to" and "sources" I haven't seen any evidence provided that he did not in fact provide a false edit summary.--

Crossmr (talk

) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(

find}} with the edit summary "+ links to sources &c." So in the example given, there is no claim by CW that he added any sources to the article, and no dishonest edit summary. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 02:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)