Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

User:Whig made his first edit on 28 April 2004, but was only an irregular and intermittent editor before 19 April 2005 (35 edits in this whole period). Since 19 April 2005 he was become somewhat obsessed with trying to change Wikipedia's approach for biographical articles where the subject uses a style or honorific. There is nothing wrong in him making his initial suggestion, but since then it has got out of hand. This is a formal request for him to leave this issue alone for a while, and to edit in other areas of WP.

His edits in relation to this issue now number around 900. This includes creating, and contributing greatly, to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles, where he has pretty much controlled the debate. He opened a vote without discussing the questions (such that the status quo wasn't even one of the options), and tried to impose a weird voting method, which is manipulable by those that understand it. He also tried to subvert the idea of deciding things by consensus - going so far as to start a "ratification vote" to decide whether 53% (by his counting) constitutes consensus (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification). He has also contributed to edit wars on Kim Jong-il (where he is battling to include a style), Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Benedict XVI (where he is battling to exclude a style) and Hillary Clinton (where he was battling to include a style). Many of these edits, particularly the Kim Jong-il one (see also Talk:Kim Jong-il) appeared to be just to prove a point.

He has also spammed editors he thinks will support his views (see his contributions).

Whig is new to WP (except for those 35 edits), and therefore is unused to WP ways - in particular about consensus-building and not being disruptive. However, at present, he has wasted a lot of time by very many users - and has made very few good constructive edits to articles in the meantime.

I ask him to leave this style issue alone for a while, and try contributing constructively in other (maybe less controversial) areas, jguk

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia is run by consensus
  2. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (or indeed for any other reason)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. jguk 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FearÉIREANN(talk) 01:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. john k 20:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC) The vote about styles has been just about the worst-conducted poll I have seen on wikipedia - and nearly all votes turn out pretty damned awful, so that's saying a lot. john k 20:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 20:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I'm with John on this one. Even the Great Peerage War of 2003/4 turned out better.[reply]
  3. I suggest Whig finds a more constructive and less confrontational approach to editing Wikipedia. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Proteus (Talk) 21:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The behaviour demonstrated by this user fails to demonstrate either reasonableness in reaching consensus as per usual WP practice or a willingness to listen to alternative options and views in a reasonable manner. imho the poll should be terminated forthwith as it is clear that there is no clear understanding by many editors of what is under discussion nor does it include all the options that are clearly considered by many editors to be worthy of discussion and have enough merit to be voted upon should a vote be considered a necessary and sensible direction to take. Vamp:Willow 22:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As John Kenney. Polls should use a transparent voting system, and 53% is never consensus. Attempts to shove through style changes without consensus are inappropriate. — Dan | Talk 22:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    He's still at it. — Dan | Talk 15:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Like it or not this is an attempt to force change on a series of articles which already have their own consensus. I missed the notice of the poll, and I have never seen any poll conducted this way. There were too few responses to make it statistically significant. The conclusion of the poll has seen an attempt to enforce its supposed results which fundamentally misunderstands the way Wikipedia works. Dbiv 08:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This was the most poorly-conducted and confusing attempt to change policy I have ever seen, and from the beginning it seemed to me to be specifically designed to engineer the result. I think the best idea at this point is to let the issue cool down for a bit, but it worries me that the idea of consensus and not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point have been so thoroughly lost on Whig. --MikeJ9919 17:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ugen64 00:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This link is Broken 16:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I believe this RfC was created in bad faith by editors who favor the prefixed use of style at the start of Wikipedia biographical entries. Examples of this usage are:

  • His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
  • Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
  • The Right Honourable Tony Blair

This usage is not NPOV, in my opinion and in the opinion of many editors, because it does not place the styles in proper context, and is not universally accepted for other (such as American) biographical entries. I have no objection to providing the style in a neutral way, for instance, "Pope Benedict XVI is formally addressed as His Holiness." I don't have any particular preference for a specific wording. Styles could also be neutrally used if they are properly attributed, for instance, quoting a source which stated, "Her Majesty met with the The Right Honourable Mr. Blair..."[1].

Another alternative which might overcome the NPOV objection would be if styles were used universally. I therefore attempted to ascertain whether they would be acceptable in a limited number of other cases, such as "The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton." They were not acceptable, and I have not fought to keep them there. My addition of this and a small limit of other examples was not intended to disrupt Wikipedia, but I had not been advised of the WP:POINT (non-)policy until after I had attempted it, and I did not persist.

Where I have made edits in error, I have reverted them myself.

My participation in the Wikipedia prior to 19 April 2005 is not very much at issue. I did make a number of non-logged-in edits before I had an account, perhaps spanning back a number of years, but I do not dispute that I was not a very active editor until recently. This is all beside the point.

I became actively involved in editing the new Pope Benedict XVI article on 19 April 2005, the day that it was created. The early days of this article's formation were rather convulsive, with a great many vandals making it difficult to make useful headway. I made a reasonable number of contributions during this time and subsequently, and my edits have generally been accepted and have not been reverted, because I have tried consistently to keep a neutral tone and report the information available, with proper citation when appropriate.

In the course of this rather active period, it became clear that certain people were insisting upon inserting the prefixed style "His Holiness" at the start of the article. Heavy discussion on the talk page ensued, with substantial opposition to the style being evident but a number of editors who pointed out that it was consistent with usage as to many other biographical entries, such as Queen Elizabeth II. Being a fairly novice editor and naive, I saw that this was the case and tried to address the issue on a limited number of other pages as well, the aforesaid Elizabeth and a few members of the royal family. I made this edit once in each case, and was reverted promptly by User:Jguk, the person who has now brought this RfC forward.

User:Jguk then posted a message to me on my Talk page, informing me that the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) prescribed this convention. Further discussion with User:Jguk was not constructive. However, being persuaded that this was a larger problem than just the few articles I was aware of, I took further discussion to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) page. Again, long discussion ensued, and I was informed by User:Jtdirl that the "policy" of prefixing styles had been adopted by some prior consensus. (Proof of this prior consensus has never been forthcoming thus far.) User:Jtdirl himself said that he had been opposed to the prefixed use of style.

The discussion was clearly divided, with a substantial number of people expressing clear disagreement with the then-current guidance. I asked how we might resolve our differences, and/or whether a survey might be taken to gauge general opinion with the objective of hopefully finding a consensus. After several weeks of this, I was pointed to the relevant pages on the Wikipedia survey guidelines, which provide explicitly for the possibility of preferential surveys. Feeling that there were more than two possible options which might be preferred, I set about proposing such a survey, and this survey was then discussed for a week in the MoS (bio) Talk page. During this period, User:Jguk refused to play any constructive role, offering no suggestions for refinement of the survey questions or methodology. His objective seemed to be purely to obstruct, in order to leave the then-guidance untouched.

On 30 April 2005, I posted the survey at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles and properly advertised it under Current Surveys and, because of its potentially wide scope of effect, WP:A. The method I chose to count ballots was Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping because I felt that this was a method that could better lead to a compromise consensus, and because of my understanding that this method is less subject to strategic voting than other methods, and I wanted participants to rank their honest preferences in order to obtain a meaningful outcome. The survey participation and related discussion caused this article to swell to an unmanageable size, and ultimately the survey itself was moved to the Project page.

Contrary to User:Jguk's contention above, I did not control the debate. I reverted changes to the survey questions and frame after voting began, as appropriate, and otherwise performed routine maintenance to keep the page orderly, but did not otherwise tamper with, alter or remove any votes or comments except for a single remark by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters directed at User:Jtdirl which I felt was gratuitous and somewhat insulting, having no particular content otherwise. That comment was restored by another user, and I left it in place.

Throughout the voting, in an effort to keep the process transparent, I performed regular tallies and posted updates to a Current Results section on the main survey page. The methodology was unfamiliar to some people, and therefore I felt this would help people to have a sense of how it was working and how their votes were being counted. I was surprised to see that the votes pretty clearly divided between two alternatives, with little compromise between these choices. Many people were voting "First and Only choice," perhaps not understanding that this did not strengthen their favored alternative, unlike how Approval voting might work. I repeatedly tried to help people understand that they should vote a full set of preferences if they wanted to make their vote count fully.

During the course of the vote, and once it was clear that Alternative 3 was prevailing (and which ultimately did prevail) with, at that time, a near 3:1 consensus against the default (None of the Above, disregard this survey), User:Jtdirl (who now supported the use of styles, despite his claimed objection to them in the past), sent a Talk message to all of the people then voting "First and Only Choice" for Alternative 1 (which was losing) to rank false preferences in order to block consensus. I will not rehash the full discussion here, but it has been archived.

User:Jtdirl has subsequently engaged in personal attacks against me, including most recently in the Talk:Pope Benedict XVI page, accusing me variously of lying and defamation. (User:Jtdirl is one of the two people who have currently "certified" this RfC against me, and one of those who have endorsed it.) I deleted the last personal attack[2], but it was restored by User:Mackensen[3] (one of the people who have endorsed User:Jguk's summary above). User:Mackensen also personally attacked me, accusing me of "duplicity" in comments attached to a vote he made in a survey. I deleted the personal attack and left the vote otherwise intact.[4]. I also reverted User:Jtdirl's reinstated personal attack.[5] Subsequently, User:Proteus reinstated User:Jtdirl's personal attack as well as User:Mackensen's.[6]. (User:Proteus is also one of the people who have endorsed User:Jguk's summary above.) User:Samboy again deleted User:Mackensen's personal attack, and pointed out in a comment that "The reason Whig has been deleting people's comments is because people have been directing personal attacks against him. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks Samboy 01:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)". User:Jtdirl's remains intact at this time, but I feel it is entirely inappropriate and his behavior in particular is, in my opinion, possible grounds for an RfC itself.[reply]

Contrary also to what User:Jguk writes above, I am not "battling to include a style" in regards to Kim Jong-il. In this case, User:Jguk has consistently tried to revert a neutral title ("Chairman"), not a style at all. It isn't especially important except to point out that User:Jguk displays extraordinary inconsistency and lack of NPOV in expecting Queen Elizabeth II to not only keep her neutral title ("Queen", which I support) but also prefix her style ("Her Majesty", which I oppose), while at the same time denying that Kim Jong-il should even have his neutral title.

In summary, this RfC was made in bad faith by proponents of prefixed styles in biographical entries, having obtained a minority result for their preference in a survey which I helped to conduct in conformity to the Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, I do not misunderstand that Wikipedia works by consensus. This does not apply to the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy. The intention to chill a substantial NPOV dispute is evident from the proposed "remedy": "I ask him to leave this style issue alone for a while, and try contributing constructively in other (maybe less controversial) areas." Whig 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this response[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Outside view[edit]

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.

Zocky[edit]

Whig, along with Lulu, has indeed shown over-eagerness in pushing their version of what the poll result means, not to mention that the badly organized poll produced a lot of bad blood (though it was well run). They got told off a bit for that, and I'll be glad if this RfC reinforces that.

But, it has to be said that the other side is misrepresenting the issue. For years, biography articles on Wikipedia had no styles. Whether it was "policy" or just status quo, is beside the question. And then, about a year ago, a group of editors started adding them to a bunch of articles. Other users immediately objected on grounds of POV and non-encyclopedicity, but got more or less shouted down. Opposition to the use of styles never ceased and finally culminated in the unfortunate poll. To cut it short, the supposed consensus for adding styles never existed.

The editors who added styles seem to have reached their conclusion that the use of styles is NPOV from the Commonwealth perspective. They may even be right. But by imposing the same policy for all biographies, they presumed that it's NPOV in the rest of the world. It's not. Calling Aleksandar Karadjordjevic "His Royal Highness Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia" is a political statement, and a very controversial one at that. To anybody familiar with Yugoslav history, this makes Wikipedia sound like a supporter of Serbian royalists and chetniks. Use of styles has strong pro-royalist connotations even in many monarchies.

What I would propose, instead of one side shutting up, is that both sides stop adding and removing styles from articles until the current poll runs out and we have had a chance to reflect on things. Also, when this poll fails and we start a fresh round of debate, I plea for moderation and civility from both sides. We know that Jguk wants styles and Whig doesn't. We don't need to be told with dozens of vehement statements, objections to the procedure and querelous (the latest buzzword) edit summaries.

Off-topic: Plenty of editors have been with us for far longer than both of these users, but as said, that's completely off-topic. Thank you.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Zocky 21:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)I have decided that I have no opinion on this matter. Apparently, people involved in this debate find petty shouting matches more important than trying to resolve the matter about which they're shouting. If anybody wishes to help move the issue of honorifics along, I'd be much obliged. Zocky 18:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I can agree to this as well. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse this, except for FearEIREANN's interjection. I don't believe this is the appropriate place for debate over styles. RSpeer 02:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  5. As Zocky points out, there is not now, nor has there ever been, consensus support for prefixed use of styles, and attempts by pro-stylists to claim otherwise are baseless. Fawcett5 23:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed. I had thought I'd signed this ages ago, but apparently not. Titanium Dragon 19:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters[edit]

There is quite a bit in Jguk's characterization of Whig's edits that is flatly false. I sort of enjoyed Jguk's spurious RfC on me, but this one on Whig is really off.

This includes creating, and contributing greatly, to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles, where he has pretty much controlled the debate. He opened a vote without discussing the questions

The questions and manner of the survey was discussed at length—certainly more than a week, maybe two—prior to Whig opening the poll. Moreover, Whig hardly "controlled the debate." For example, Jguk was much more voluminous and belligerent in commenting on the debate than Whig was.

Furthermore, the "status quo" (i.e. what Jguk earlier unilaterally wrote into the Manual of Style) was one of the (rejected) options in the survey.

tried to impose a weird voting method, which is manipulable by those that understand it.

Condorcet tallying of ranked votes is non-weird, is well understood, and is widely used by other projects. Moreover, Whig pushed Condorcet voting in large part because you cannot as easily "game the system" as you can with other tallying methods for ranked votes.

I don't particularly advocate Condorcet myself, but claiming its use is something nefarious is just absurd. Yes, it hasn't been used much on WP; but that is all you can accurately claim. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:20, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
  2. Whig 03:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I endorse this as well. jguk seemed to be deliberately stirring up trouble. RSpeer 13:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis[edit]

I can see no merit in this RfC at all; indeed, it comes perilously close to disupting Wikipedia to make a point. The complaint seems to be that Whig set up a proposal and a debate with which a few users disagreed (though this didn't stop them participating in it). This simply doesn't meet the requirements of an RfC, and I'm tempted to suggest that it should be treated as an RfC on those who have brought it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:42, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think the complaint has more to do with Whig attempting to change policy in an un-Wikipedia manner and then being unfriendly when he got called on it. My comment goes ditto for your outside view on Lulu, which I notice is the same right down to the misspelling of "them." Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I's be more impressed if the people who objected had shown their principles by not participating. Besides, that it was un-Wikipedia is something that has yet to be shown. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly confident that it will be demonstrated that it was un-Wikipedian (I urge you to review the full history of the voting process). A principled abstention would have entailed disengagement, and we're trying to formulate policy here, not win political points. We (others moreso than I) participated to try and explain our position, and we also tried to convince Whig to use a different voting system. Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Whig 03:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:16, 2005 May 17 (UTC): Notice that this is not an RfC in any meaningful sense. It's several pro-style-usage editors who are resentful about losing a vote trying to find some forum in which to argue endlessly about how wonderful styles are. It has nothing particularly to do with Whig, and almost nothing to do with Wikipedia in general. Yes, Whig has a different opinion than Jtdirl and Jguk do (and, yes, my opinion is closer to Whig's). Oh, and Whig also likes Condorcet voting more than they do. That's not an RfC, or a Wikiquette violation, or even an issue in the sense we're supposed to have here. It's just irrelevant nonsense.
  4. Maurreen 20:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Titanium Dragon 23:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) If anyone involved in any of this deserves a RFC, it would be jguk, who unilaterally changed the biography page and participated in numerous edit wars.[reply]
  6. Whig should be commended for not responding in kind to personal attacks. Jonathunder 13:59, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Maurreen[edit]

This RFC is baseless at best. And Whig is no more “obsessed” about styles than Jguk is.

Specifically, Jguk says:

  1. “He has pretty much controlled the debate”. FALSE
  2. “He opened a vote without discussing the questions (such that the status quo wasn't even one of the options)
  3. “He opened a vote without discussing the questions (such that the status quo wasn't even one of the options), and tried to impose a weird voting method, which is manipulable by those that understand it.” FALSE
    1. For one thing, the survey was discussed for several days. Jguk chose to just oppose the survey, instead of help decide how it might work.
  4. “He also tried to subvert the idea of deciding things by consensus.” FALSE
    1. The issue of styles was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles. During that discussion, there was no consensus to use styles. Further, the definition of “consensus” is somewhat gray. Jguk says others don’t respect it, but he never gives his definition. Jguk’s input concerning styles have done nothing to build consensus.
  5. “He has also spammed editors he thinks will support his views (see his contributions). NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE

I have no knowledge either way of the edit war allegations. But even if true, that makes Whig no more culpable than the other people involved.

The fact that some people do not like details of a survey, or results of a survey, is an inappropriate reason for an RFC.

I’d also like to point out that Jguk has given no evidence of trying to resolve anything with Whig. Maurreen 20:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trödel[edit]

I have been asked to comment on this RfC and after much thought I decided to "step in it" so to speak.

My main concern about Whig's contributions resolve around the assumption that a vote for a specific change to the Policy is equivelant to a vote to repudiate the status quo. I know that by including the status quo in the round robin debate and my vote was 3>2>1>4=5 (I think) there is an argument to be made that is what he intended. However, I think it is clear that current policies should only be overturned by clear consensus (for me that means 80% and certainly not less than 70% in favor of the change).

The issue is overreaching and trying to impose the vote on certain articles before it is completed. This was done by framing the results of the vote as:

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. [7]

and as subsequently reiterated:

The question presented was whether the status quo ante represented a neutral point of view (NPOV) and/or whether it should be changed to a convention which refers to the formal style of address without using it at the start of the article. The status quo ante was defeated by a majority of all ballots cast. [8] for example

Then articles were reverting using this framing of the vote results as precedence i.e. quoting this "status quo ante was defeated" (see here and here for examples - there were others). I feel that this framing of the issue was improper Wikipedia:Wikiquette; in that it violated the principals: 1) Work toward agreement, 2) Don't ignore questions, 3) Recognize your own biases and keep them in check, for example. In sum it did not fairly represent the diversity of the views on the issue as could be seen by the 3 beats 1, 1 beats 4, 4 beats 3 cycle.

Conversely, I think this RfC is too much. And the bringing of it could also be considered improper Wikipedia:Wikiquette for lack of good faith; however, I think the nominators of the RfC are just frustrated because they have been "deep in the fight," and I must assume they brought this in good faith so that it could start a resolution of their conflict.

I hope the parties will step away, reread Wikipedia:Wikiquette and see the good contributions that each are making and work towards a compromise that can build true consensus, such as the one that Zocky proposed.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Trödel|talk 23:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The reason I endorsed this RfC is that I believed Whig's behavior deserved comment. I don't view it as an RfC "against" Whig so much as a legitimate request that the community review his behavior and see what they thought. The above, in particular, deserves comment, and those who say they see nothing wrong with what Whig has done should read Trōdel's summary carefully (and yes, I'm endorsing this view as well). Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ann Heneghan 23:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We all are frustrated and "deep in the fight". I feel that Whig, in general, has been much more civil than Lulu during the whole voting process. Thank you, Trödel. Bratschetalk random 03:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. I agree with this presentation of the facts. While I may think bringing the RfC in the first place is over-reaching, I also agree with the facts as presented in bringing it and I support this as an attempt to resolve the issue. --MikeJ9919 01:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

tarleton[edit]

I completley agree with Maureen's view above. My additional comments: this RfC is another try to intimidate people and to pretend, that the personal views of user:Jguk et al about the use of styles are wikipedia policy based on consensus. Also, how long user:whig has been active here is irrelevant. --Tarleton 08:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Fine, a bunch of people don't like the voting rules for the survey Whig did. It is fine to disagree about that—well, maybe not fine since they are slightly sophistical. But close enough. What on earth does that have to do with an RfC?!

Am I going to be RfC'd (again) if I go enhance the page I assembled on Multiple dispatch to include the (slightly contentious) notion that predicative dispatch is a species in the genus of parametric type systems?! I know there are people who would disagree with that position. But wouldn't the solution be to edit the article rather than RfC me for it? (the topic is on my brain because I have a forthcoming external article about this, and I'll probably add a WP link to it once it appears). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:11, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

You were blocked for 48 hours for twice breaking the 3 reversion rule. You were unblocked (or as the person who unblocked you put it, parolled) purely to participate in these debates. It probably would be better if you didn't edit anything other than defend yourself against comments on the two RfC pages for the 48 hours the block was intended to last. Otherwise it might appear as though you were circumventing the block that was imposed for breaking rules twice, and that could be interpreted by some people as provocative. FearÉIREANN(talk) 02:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually [Zocky's outside view] is wrong. It is standard for a son of the last monarch, who was legally his or her heir when the throne existed, to be known as Crown Prince of <name>. Not using that format would be POV. But calling that Crown Prince 'king', or calling the eldest son of the Crown Prince 'Crown Prince' would be POV. The standard nomenclature in such circumstances is to treat the deposed king's title as a courtesy title, not a constitutional office, for the duration of their lifetime, then not to use it for any descendants. Ditto with someone who was Crown Prince at any stage in his life. Calling him Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia is standard nomenclature. It does not indicate a constitutional office, merely a courtesy title. And just as the term 'King of Yugoslavia' died with his father, so 'Crown Prince of Yugoslavia' will die with him. FearÉIREANN(talk)

While I raise an eyebrow at challenging people's view's in the middle of a somewhat formal statement, I'd just like to point out that the said deceased king was deposed in 1945, all his styles and titles (and everybody else's in Yugoslavia) were officially abolished. So if you wish to be formal, he's Mr. Aleksandar Karadjordjevic, Esq. Zocky 02:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they had not been technically legally abolished correctly at the point where Alexander was born. And while a state can abolish a state title, it cannot deny a deposed crown prince the use of that form of address as a courtesy title. (The limits to what a state can and cannot do to deposed royals are a matter of international law, precedent and convention. And as the Government of the Hellenic Republic found in the European Court when judged against for the treatment of the exiled King Constantine II of the Hellenes, there are legal limits to its rights.) Alexander is Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia as a courtesy title and that is on his diplomatic passport as supplied by the Serbian republic. FearÉIREANN(talk) 02:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is off-topic here, so I'll finish it here. Look, your whole argument is that styles are NPOV because they undeniably apply to people. I don't think that makes them NPOV, but let's say I do. The whole point here is that there are at least four countries whose laws continue to deny that he's anything of Yugoslavia, let alone a prince. Seeing that they're the majority of those directly concerned, I can't see how calling him that is NPOV. Zocky 03:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even a matter of prefixing "HM" or "HRH," but a completely different subject. At any rate, this seems to be an instance where we have to choose to call him either one or the other, and clearly both are, to an extent, POV. It would be no more POV to call him "Alexander Karadjodjevic" than to call him "Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia." The latter, as the more commonly used name, which also has the benefit of following the standard convention for Crown Princes of former monarchies, should be used. john k 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved duplicate vote here)

  1. The poll was a farce which confused most of the people taking part. When I pointed to some users that by voting for only one option they risked inadvertently supporting all options not registering their opposition to others, I was accused by Whig of trying to rig his poll and corral voters (whatever that is). Having announced his result and announced the latest twist, the 'ratification', Whig proceded to try to force the implementation of his (by his own admission by calling a ratification vote) unratified decision, based on only 53% support in the original garbled vote, unilaterally before anyone had a chance to vote on the so-called 'ratification'. And to cap it all, in breach of standard wikipedia policy, Whig tried to insist that the previous consensus wasn't a consensus, and his non-consensus overturned the previous consensus, and that if we did not vote for his consensus the old consensus would be overturned and a free-for-all introduced (with him and Lulu, as they had already started doing, imposing their POV on styles). The whole thing is without doubt one the worst farce on wikipedia. The vote had all the transparency of a glass of milk and Whig's handling of it was biased, bossy, self-righteous and controlling. It is a complete and utter shambles on a scale that would make Basil Fawlty cringe. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points:
  • Lest their be any confusion, I placed the 'duplicate vote' in first. When hours later I noticed that under Users certifying the basis for this dispute Jguk had not yet had a second signatory, I added mine, and inadvertently forgot to remove the other vote I had cast. (Lulu and Whig are constantly accusing me of trying to corrupy their votes (lol) so to soothe them before they have yet another outburst of accusations I thought it wise to explain what happened).
  • In Whig's explanation he mentioned his opposition to the use of styles. He did not inform people at the time. Many people felt after the way the survey result was used that Whig was clearly using the result to push an agenda. It might have been better if he had explained from day 1 that he was a committed opponent of styles. Many people did not realise that.
  • The feeling that he was using the votes of everyone to push an agenda caused a considerable degree of offence and anger, as shown in the comments on the rarification page. In particular his decision to force the implementation of the ratification of the vote onto pages before it had been ratified caused considerable anger, annoyance and led some people enclined to vote to ratify to vote against in protest. It was not the actions one expects of a supposedly neutral co-ordinator of a vote. It also made people extremely suspicious concerning the manner of the vote, the use of a voting system that confused most people, and the forced implementation of a 'decision' based on an absolute majority by the author of the vote, whom as he has admitted, had wanted that decision anyway and by his constant claiming that NPOV trumphs consensus, by which he means that if the style first option had won he still would have declared it an invalid win as he personally thought it POV .
  • re the claim that Jguk was trying to force a style onto Benedict XVI, not so. He was just trying to make the article follow the agreed style that existed in all the other papal pages, all of which began His Holiness. The myth of jguk highjacked the page to push his POV on it has been peddled by Whig and Lulu for long enough. It is simply wrong.
  • As Whig yet again casts smears about my 'claimed' opposition to the use of styles (in the last week he has accused me of "tactical deception" in his poll and various other things, all untrue) let me be clear. There was a previous vote. I opposed styles being used and proposed they be contextualised in articles. User:John Kenney, User:Proteus and others can confirm that. I was in a minority. I have since, as is my right, concluded that using styles up front is better (preferably with wikified links explaining the style) and changed my stance accordingly.
  • For the record: when Whig started his vote I congratulated him on doing so, while expressing worry about what I saw as the failure to think out a strategy for deciding on the key questions - styles: yes or no? If yes, for all or limited? If limited, for whom? Location: Front or in paragraph? I became increasingly happy at what I saw increasing failures to run a proper survey, and what I perceived to his commitment to one side of the argument. FearÉIREANN(talk) 00:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. SqueakBox 16:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC). Whig made style changes to Rastafarianism and Haile Selassie of Ethiopia which seem to echo what I read here, and the chaos I have seen him creating over the last few days. I don't have faith that he doesn't engage in edit wars with those who disagree with him, as he and I have been/are involved in one in these disagreements, which he is clearly having with multiple users, --SqueakBox 22:07, May 18, 2005 (UTC). Having investigated and thought further I am withdrawing my support for this Rfc, and wish to remain neutral. I hope he and I can resolve our differences on any various talk pages. I am supportive of his styles generally but not the way he is going about enacting them, --SqueakBox 23:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think that Squeakbox misunderstands what is meant by style (manner of address) and in the case of Haile Selassie, there has been no attempt certainly by me to prefix "His Imperial Majesty" or otherwise engage in edit-warring. This above complaint makes specific charges which the endorsers above are trying to turn into a kitchen sink of complaints that do not rise to even a violation of Wikiquette, much less an RfC. I think those who read my response below should consider whether they ought to author a separate and accurate statement which this one is not. Whig 23:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Close[edit]

The complaint above is not appropriate for an RfC, it comports a false record of my activities in Wikipedia as explained in my response, there is no actual dispute here except that User:Jguk would like me to withdraw my participation in a substantial NPOV dispute over the prefixed use of styles. Nor has User:Jtdirl (who "certified" this RfC) evidenced any effort to resolve anything with me. Those endorsing the statement have not addressed the substance of the complaint, instead using this as yet another forum to whine about a survey, which would properly be made as a separate RfC regarding the survey itself. There is no misconduct here on my part, and this entire exercise is an apparent disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, at best. Whig 05:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I support closing it. I found it too time consuming to write a Response like Zocky, Mel, etc. What I wrote was a bit messy, so I put it on the discussion page related to this RfC rather than here. I gave two examples to show that it was possible to resolve differences with Whig [9] and that Whig was not disruptive [10]. I am in favour of styles before the name, but have not found Whig an abusive or disruptive opponent! Being a little eager to implement the change without proper consensus is hardly grounds for an RfC. I might add that I do not think the RfC was filed in bad faith either. Things got a little heated. There's no reason why this can't be resolved courteously. I haven't signed any response except Trödel's because that's the only one I agree with fully. But I'd like to state officially that I do not support this RfC. Ann Heneghan 23:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your second link above does not seem to work. Btw, I would prefer things to be resolved courteously, and asked User:Jguk and User:Jtdirl on their respective Talk pages to consider my response and withdraw this RfC on their own initiative during the initial 48 hour period. I did not receive a reply from User:Jtdirl and the reply from User:Jguk on my own Talk page made very clear that his intention has been and remains purely to chill my personal participation in the NPOV dispute over prefixed styles. Therefore, I cannot consider this RfC—whatever the initial intentions in filing it may have been—to have been maintained in good faith. Whig 02:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the second link [11] - the one to show that Whig was not disruptive. Don't know what happened when I posted it the first time. By the way, I'll also point out that Whig showed some restraint when the RfC was filed. I think many people would have been far more vocal. Ann Heneghan 21:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close it Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:15, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

I support the move to close. I hope (but doubt) that whatever the intentions of those that brought it the airing of the differences will help in some way. Trödel|talk 23:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no acknowledgment whatsoever by Whig about the issues underlying this RfC. Whether he recognises that, in retrospect, the way he conducted his poll was inappropriate to WP. Nor is there any recognition that it is best for him (and for me as well) to leave this style issue alone for a while. Until there is some acknowledgment that something went wrong, the RfC should not close because the dispute remains unresolved. Kind regards, jguk 08:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid dispute, and your continued lack of good faith is unfortunate. Whig 08:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On my Talk page, User:Jguk indicated that his own willingness to "leave this style issue alone" is contingent even on whether others than myself contextualize styles instead of prefixing them, and he still reserves the right to revert in such cases.[12] Whig 08:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On a point of clarification - it is only contingent on Lulu, not any other editors. I have suggested the three of us leave the issue alone - so it is left to other editors. Kind regards, jguk 11:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I do not control Lulu's actions, so your proposal to withdraw is contingent on somehow reaching a trilateral agreement, and this leaves the other editors free to continue the edit war, accomplishing nothing substantial. Again, this is not appropriate for an RfC. Whig 12:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the motion to close. Whig's action have almost always civil, albeit sometimes confusing, and this RfC shows that some dialogue between the involved parties has happened. Bratschetalk random 01:26, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that a consensus exists at this point, with only one dissent in the last week, to close this RfC. Whig 19:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Concur. Let's put this behind us and move on. Fawcett5 02:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Whig&oldid=1145694765"