Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Indian Head eagle/archive1
Tony1/Wehwalt
[edit]Moved from main review page 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Tony deleted the following:
And this is the editor who has publicly pushed to make it impossible for anyone but admins to copy-edit FA blurbs that appear on the main page. So here's a wp:pointy review to scrutinise the work of this admin. He has also just complained to Raul that it's somehow wrong to improve the language and formatting of a blurb because this will make it more different from the opening of the corresponding FA. He would object, thus, to any attempt to improve the text of this lead insofar as it appeared as a blurb on the main page. I'm not an admin, so maybe I don't have the status to suggest improvements here.
- It is obvious that his oppose is motivated by hatred, rather than by content. No further response will be made; I am not called upon to convert the unconvertable. After all, was there any reasonable chance that Tony would have supported within minutes of making insulting comments towards me? Sorry, even if AN/I won't take action, Tony's plainly using Wikipedia as a battleground. The oppose does not exist as far as I am concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- At Sandy's urging I have gone through Tony's comments and made several changes. As I said, most seemed stylistic. I have made those changes that I felt would improve the article, and that's the end of that as far as I am concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- You'll need to address them all, or provide detailed reasons for why you think one or two are not suitable. Then I'll look further into the article to provide advice/critiquing.
I must formally ask that SandyGeorgia recuse from acting as delegate for this FAC, given the bullying and threats she has made against me over the past half day—this includes an ominous statement claiming there are things "I have to factor when reading your reviews." Tony (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think anyone but the nominator has the right to request recusal. And I can't treat you like a normal reviewer after your comment above, Tony. You opposed out of spite. You said so yourself. That isn't in dispute. You expect me to believe you will give the article a neutral and dispassionate evaluation? Sorry, not buying. You are conflicted out from reviewing any and all of my articles, at any stage of development. You decided that, not me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- You'll need to address them all, or provide detailed reasons for why you think one or two are not suitable. Then I'll look further into the article to provide advice/critiquing.
- At Sandy's urging I have gone through Tony's comments and made several changes. As I said, most seemed stylistic. I have made those changes that I felt would improve the article, and that's the end of that as far as I am concerned.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
End moved commentary. This move was made in an effort to keep the FAC on track and as much as possible avoid fallout from the related ANI discussion. If either editor has an issue with the move or with the summary I left on the main page, feel free to raise it here or at my talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Now I see Wehwalt is making up self-serving rules as he goes (who can request—actually demand—recusal). The recusal of SandyGeorgia is essential to avoid the appearance of corruption at FAC. Wehwalt will need to address the technical concerns, and engage with all reviewers, not those he selects. Tony (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)