Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:48, 26 October 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Co-editor apparently banning me from pages

See /Smatprt. A topic ban from the topic of William Shakespeare has been proposed and has considerable support, and a mutual editing restriction on all parties is also under consideration.

Moved to subpage as it's rather big. --TS 22:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Datestamp of this comment is faked in an attempt to delay archiving of this pointer. --TS 22:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the two editors (I am both the plaintiff and, in the thread, subsequently indicted)for whom a topic ban has been proposed, User:Smatprt, has noted on the page that he is experiencing problems with his computer, and will be travelling until the 18th, and thus cannot respond to the charges or issues raised concerning his editing behaviour. I suggest the page here retain this notice until at least that date.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Merridew behaviour

Per , and , I ask an uninvolved admin to block Jack Merridew (talk · contribs) for disruption. This is a continuation of a pattern of abusive editing on Merridew's part to impose his preferred styles on articles over objections. He is now accusing me of "harrassment" for undoing his undiscussed changes to the styles established in articles that I previously edited. Merridew was banned by arbcom for past stalking and abuse of multiple accounts. His current arbcom sanction mentions " follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts". I submit he has failed to do so. I believe, at this point, his behaviour is more than serious enough to warrant a block. I would block him myself for disruption, but other admins have felt I am involved. (I will be offline for many hours now.) Gimmetoo (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are involved; and very much so.  pablo 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute, and a kinda lame one at that. Is there a version that is more frequently used in other actor bios? Has this been discussed in a style guideline perhaps in a wikiproject? Tarc (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about colours or styles or my editing; he's decided to target me. Merridew 20:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• this statement
• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• ANI632#Gimmetoo, again
• ANI641#RexxS behaviour (which was about Gimme' reverting me)

Merridew 21:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not going to lie, after reading over those diffs, and your ANI report, it looks like you, Gimmetoo, are the one who has been doing all the harassing. If there's a content dispute, take it back to square one with Jack and discuss it civilly. For the record, Jack is more than willing to talk about his edits. On a side note, considering that you yourself do not have all too stellar of a track record, I encourage you to not hurl stones at other people's glass houses when you live in one yourself. -FASTILY 20:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that last bit isn't very fair. One 12hr block for 3RR and one temporary indef to confirm that an alt account was genuine does not make one's abode a glass one. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Fastily's summary of the interactions between Jack and Gimmetoo/trow. It is clear that Gimme is the one being tendentious and unreasonable, and has indulged in hounding behaviour over a period of several months. Gimme seems to believe that he owns certain articles and interprets all disagreement on their content or presentation as a personal affront, and I'm sure I don't need to say that that is a totally unproductive and irrational attitude. It is also worrying that Gimme takes such delight in bringing up Jack Merridew's (very distant) past bad behaviour, as though it's prima facie evidence that Jack must be in the wrong now. That is quite obviously wrong too. I urge Gimmetoo to leave Jack the hell alone and stop being so precious. This is beyond tiresome. Reyk _YO! 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed this, before Gimmetoo/trow finds themselves having a major issue. Blocking Merridew themselves would result in a desysop RFC. So don't do it. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not resolved. Merridew went immediately to making similar inappropriate changes of style known to be controversial, in this case in direct violation of WP:CITE#Citation_templates_and_tools: " Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." The edits in question are to Kerr and Andress. Merridew made no attempt to gain consensus, no post on the talk page, no attempt at discussion that I can find. Furthermore, his edit to Andress installed a bug in the table that Merridew ought to know about, because it was the content basis for the last ANI issue. (An issue which, by the way, Merridew misprepresents above; Merridew undid one of my edits, I started a discussion, and Merridew didn't respond.) And I noticed these because both Kerr and Andress are articles I have watchlisted, and that I've edited quite a bit, as far as I know long before Merridew ever edited them. (I've also edited the other articles Merridew edited: Bynes and Bullock.) It seems likely to me that Merridew is stalking me, especially given Merridew's documented prior stalking. Gimmetoo (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The difference between this and this is what you are so flustered about? Removing some entirely redundant coloring is an "inappropriate edit" that gets you up in arms like this? --87.79.51.168 (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Storm in a teacup much? 160.44.248.164 (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Looks like someone is suffering from a serious case of WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Please stop for the good of the project. Thanks, FASTILY 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're all missing the point-- we have policies and guidelines for a reason, and Gimme is following them. How about telling Merridew to move along and find something else to occupy his time with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that Gimmetoo/trow is making it a habit of demanding blocks of editors who disagree with him when he doesn't get his way, has a major ownership problem with some articles, and refuses to listen to constructive feedback. Why should Jack "move along" when he's working for the good of the project and obeying policy and guidelines (indeed, helping to improve them) simply because an obstructionist doesn't like it? What needs to happen here is for Gimetoo to "let it go;" I hope that action will be taken against him the next time he makes one of these frivolous complaints.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your assertion that Jack is obeying policy and guidelines, when it is Gimme who is doing so? If Merridew doesn't like our citation guidelines, he should take his crusade to that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is that there are other venues for resolution of disputes before marching straight to ANI. This page is not for yelling "I don't like what this editor's doing, please block them". This is why I've marked this resolved (twice). Black Kite (t) (c) 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The explanation of how Jack is obeying policy and guidelines is that he's making articles internally consistent (and very often consistent with other similar articles as well). Consistency is a principle that overrules personal preferences. It is downright disruptive to complain about changing a reference like this: <ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html</ref> to this: <ref>{{cite web|last=Oh |first=Eunice |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20414325,00.html |title=Miranda Kerr: Yes, I'm Pregnant! - Babies, Miranda Kerr, Orlando Bloom |publisher=People.com |date=2010-08-19 |accessdate=2010-10-15}}</ref> and Gimme knows it. He's also aware that MOS:ENDASH documents the consensus that we should change dates ranges like "1987-1988" to "1987–1988" and Gimme knows that as well. He even knows how to fix the problem that his browser causes him, because I've taught him how to do it (add a sort key). It's about time that Gimme stopped obstructing editors whose only desire is to improve Misplaced Pages, and quit running to ANI every time he doesn't get his way, before the community loses patience with him. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. ANI is not here to play mommy. I also don't see anything wrong with Jack's edits as a purely practical matter. He removes redundant coding, an outright good thing. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive as we say. It describes accepted community standards, not tells us what to do. We even have/had that wording on one of the policy overview pages, followed by 'it can and does lag behind community practices at times'. I think the lack of outcry and the frustration with Gimmetoo's hounding of Jack is fairly good evidence that the policy in question is starting to get behind the times. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(od) Another editor tried to work things out with Jack once before but he managed to out last her. She retired from the project, see it here Wildhartlivie. I'm done for the night but I'm sure Jack can supply the many difs to the RFC and the projects who dealt with this. Have a good night everyone. --CrohnieGal 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody also had frequent arguments with Jack Merridrew. A Nobody is now banned from editing. --Alpha Quadrant 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and blatantly untrue.  pablo 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think you can draw a causal link between those two statements.  pablo 11:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was obviously a big argument between the two: http://meta.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Rlevse --Alpha Quadrant 00:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WHL (and a second account first thought to be a sock but later identified as a friend who edited at her house) seemed to be on a crusade to keep a wild variety of colors in various articles rather than going for a more unified, sober, and meaningful approach. There were more editors than WHL and Jack involved in that, but there was some edit warring on both sides, and I would not by any means paint this as "WHL tried to work things out with Jack". As for A Nobody, it's probably a lot more accurate to say that after a community RfC on A Nobody, the findings of which he failed to heed, and a subsequent ArbCom case which he "retired" to avoid, A Nobody was blocked and then a community ban was layered on top of that. A Nobody went on to disparage other editors on his private Wikia wiki, to the point of being ordered to desist by Wikia staff. That's probably a far more accurate recounting of events. I don't really hold Jack responsible for either of those two editors departing. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what CronhieGal's comment is supposed to mean. This dispute started when Merridew tried to install cite templates on two articles, and was reverted (by me on one, and another admin on the other). The consequent discussion on both articles did not provide consensus for Merridew's edits. Nevertheless, well after these discussion concluded, Merridew made precisely that change on two other articles - articles that I routinely edit, and edited long before Merridew ever edited them. Merridew made no attempt at discussion, and given the past two attempts, likely would not get consensus for Merridew's edits at the articles in question. Nevertheless, many editors appear to be supporting Merridew's edits as perfectly OK.

Nobody who edits here for any length of time is going to do everything perfect. Everyone has faults. Indeed, most of the commentators above have committed wikifaults in various degrees, including me. Indeed, some of those above are involved in this dispute but neglected to reveal that point for genuinely uninvolved editors. Some editors have civility issues. Some editors fail to observe WP:BRD. Some may be canvassing. Given the two IP edits from the same country, there may be sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, I saw the behavior displayed by Merridew as much worse than anything anyone else in this thread has done recently. But apparently those commenting above disagree. Therefore, I would like to get this straight: is it the consensus of this ANI thread that:

1. there is nothing wrong with edit-warring to change an article to meet an editor's preferred style, regardless of the style present in the article, how long it has been there, or any past discussions
2. specifically, the prohibition of WP:CITE of edit-warring to install cite templates is obsolete and is to be marked historical
3. there is nothing wrong with targeting articles another editor edits routinely
4. there is nothing wrong with edit summaries in article space identifying a specific editor's edits as harassment

Is that the consensus here? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, how about:

1. specifically, there is nothing wrong with improving an article by changing a bare url to a properly formatted citation, regardless of how many badly-formed references there are in the article, nor how long they have been there
2. it is unacceptable to edit-war to revert article improvements
3. the guidance against changing the style of references is subordinate to the need to have references displayed in a consistent format in an article
4. there is nothing wrong with identifying harassment when it occurs
5. ANI is not dispute resolution, and the community has only limited patience with those who abuse it

Perhaps we could get consensus for that? --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying, if any part of an article is "inconsistent" in any way whatsoever, that you are 100% completely justified in changing every style aspect of the article to any style you choose, and that it is 100% completely justified to remove any other fixes or corrections to the article at the same time? Gimmetoo (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And you're saying that on articles that you routinely edit, and have edited for a long time, nobody is allowed to format the references to display in a consistent manner, or you'll report them to ANI? Or is it just Jack who isn't allowed? --RexxS (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say "consistency" is fine, if it reflects the way the article has developed. For instance, I would say that an article that is stable with 90% one variety of English could be made 100% that variety, but taking a 10% variation as an pretext to make the article 100% a different form would probably not be OK. Would you agree? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that consistency of presentation is far more important than whatever underlying mechanism is used to achieve that. I certainly would agree that an article which is 90% one format and 10% another would be improved by making it 100% consistent. To address the issue of which format, the "majority style" of English is not one of the deciding factors given at WP:ENGVAR for good reason. The primary deciding factor is whether the subject has strong national ties; the secondary one is the first major contributor who used a variety of English. Since an article may have been expanded considerably by an editor who used a different variety, we've reached the present consensus that majority usage is not a deciding factor. Nevertheless, extrapolating ENGVAR to other issues requires caution. "The English Misplaced Pages does not prefer any major national variety of the language" means that we hold either variety in equal respect. The same does not apply for the display style of references. For example, I believe that one of the fully-formatted references (as enumerated at WP:CITE#HOW) is always preferred to bare urls (which often only display a superscript numeral). It would be a mistake to object to an edit which improved an article with inconsistent referencing by bringing it into consistency with one of the full citation styles given at WP:CITE#HOW. Wouldn't you agree? --RexxS (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I would disagree with some of your statements. Installing citation templates is contentious. While a "fully-formatted reference" is in some ways an improvement, I think that using "fully-formatted reference" as a pretext for installing citation templates in an article that has developed without them is an abuse, and to do so to target and bait editors who support WP:CITE is pointy and WP:HA. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand your view, and appreciate it. Citation templates are contentious, but I'm not prepared to either endorse or condemn installing them without considering context. I still think the way references are presented is more important then whether they are made via a good hand-crafted reference or a citation template. As everyone knows, citation templates make citation maintenance much easier and present a (generally) consistent result. Not everyone understands the problem that an large article with 100+ templates can take a considerable time for the server to generate in edit mode. That is an issue that will require developers to address. Personally, I have no difficulty with someone converting an underdeveloped article to citation templates, but I wouldn't recommend it for large, heavily referenced articles at present. I accept that your view may be different, and there is a large "grey area" in between the obvious extremes, where discussion and judgement is required. I'm glad we can agree on the value of fully-formatted references, but I would still recommend that individual articles deserve individual discussions, and suggest that the relevant article talk page is a better venue to search for consensus on this issue. --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, you can see this same type of disagreement being discussed multiple times. First, here is an AN/i report very similar to this one. Also instead of writing down all the difs in it, you will see in that report all the difs of where this was discussed at multiple locations like the village pump, WT:ACTOR. All I'm saying is that this same kind of complaint got no where before and it needs to be dealt with this time. The actor project had a few major discussions going on about this too, the dif is in the link above. Jack did the same thing to Wildhartlivie following her from one article to the next. The dif for that was deleted so I can no longer get access to it. Jack has a set way that he feels the project should follow and he just barges in and makes the changes and doesn't bother to discuss it with editors who are working the articles. I dropped out the discussion finally myself because it was like talking to a brick wall. Wildhartlivie, finally got fed up with no one taking this serious to help her out with all the harrassment she felt she was getting so she finally just slapped a semi-retirement up and slowly found that she couldn't work here with running into Jack still that she found that her enjoyment here was no long going to be had and she left permanently. We have to have Jack follow the same set of rules as everyone else. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand that Jack does target editors and he is relentless. I know he has his supporters but it is time now with another editor saying the same thing about it to make it stop. Just my opinion but this is kind of a rerun of what I saw the last time. I hope this clarifies my hurried post last night. Gimmetoo is not wrong, he is right, Jack has no right to force his opinions on everyone else. He's been doing that for a long time now, is anyone going to say enough is enough now? HTH, --CrohnieGal 10:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's an accurate or helpful summation at all. You (as a friend of WHL) are wildly misstating the case here. WHL was not harassed by Jack and to say that really is over the top. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Crohnie, you know I've taken WHL's side in a lot of disagreements, more than most, in fact, but your summary of events is plain wrong. Her departure was far more complicated than you indicate, she was consistently hostile towards Jack, and her standard reaction became to completely lose her temper, not just at Jack but at several editors, usually for piddling reasons such as they did something she didn't like. I think it's fair to say that WHL viewed Jack with malice. You also know that Jack asked me to mediate between the two of them, WHL agreed, and then at the 11th hour absolutely refused to proceed and instead chose to depart. Her choice. She could still be here if she'd kept a cooler head. I agree with Lar's comments, above and below. Rossrs (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I need to clarify what I meant in saying I agreed with Lar's comments. I agree with what he said regarding Jack's intentions. I'm convinced that his aim is to make incremental improvements where he sees the need and rather than ask permission to make edits, which he should not have to do, he makes them and then discusses them when questioned. That is how it should be. I was strongly against him at the beginning of the talk you refer to at WP:ACTOR, then I thought that as nobody else was prepared to listen to him, I would, and ultimately I could see his point. WHL wouldn't/couldn't (I don't know which) but didn't make an effort to see any viewpoint but her own and if anything her attitude fanned the fire. I think she was more than capable of speaking up for herself, so I don't believe it's right to portray her as a victim. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my view on this contretemps. ((obDisclose, I've stuck up for Jack before) Jack, in his gnomish way, has been going around improving things (I find it hard to argue against moving citations from bare links or hand formatted references to the citation templates, and even harder to argue against changing bare dashes to emdashes per the MOS.) and that seems to have setGimme off to the point that he's exerting ownership characteristics. That needs to stop. The case, as presented by Gimme is spurious (and it was closed twice already). I'll go farther, if Gimme keeps reverting improvements to articles, whoever makes them, a block is in order. Jack is editing in agreement with our convention. Gimme should drop the stick and back away from the horse, now, before this degenerates further. ++Lar: t/c 10:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's any help, Lar, your summary reflects my own thoughts (obDisclose, I share Jack's perspective on improving Misplaced Pages). To be as fair as I can to Gimme, I should say that citation templates present an issue in very large articles (as I outlined above), and that changing hyphens to endashes in date ranges (per MOS) presents a minor problem particular to the Safari 4 browser (as outlined in Gimme's earlier complaint against me). These issues are solvable, but not at ANI. I'd encourage Gimme to engage in the process of seeking solutions, as there are plenty of editors willing to collaborate in that. --RexxS (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true. The issues are discussable and solveable. I'm not going to buy into the citation discussion any further than I have, but I have been discussing the use of colour in film award tables at Talk: Halle Berry, and in fairness to Gimme, he is discussing it. On the other hand, we discussed the same thing a few weeks ago on my talk page, specifically Halle Berry, and he reverted me in mid discussion and suddenly I was alone in the discussion. That appears to me to fall under the heading of "ownership characteristics". If he's looked at my talk page since then, he's aware of how negatively I viewed that, but as long as the current discussion remains on track, the issue remains solveable. Rossrs (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

nb: Gimmetoo's reverts of my edits to Ursula Andress && Miranda Kerr are being discussed at Talk:Ursula Andress and the awards colour-thangs at Talk:Halle Berry. I'm still travelling. Jack Merridew 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the color issue, but MOS specifically addresses this by stating that excess markup should be avoided, and ACCESS discusses the issues wrt vision-impaired editors and screenreaders. I rather imagine there is a similar issue occurring here, as there is probably little reason to introduce color there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, Sandy, the "color issue" is that some articles have developed with tables that use colour-coded results. Merridew et al. are trying to remove them. I am viewing that issue as mostly an arbitrary style change. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation-- if the color coding conforms to WP:ACCESS, I don't have a problem with it. The usual problem with color coding is that it doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, editing a table to reflect a site-wide default style is not "an arbitrary style change". If I was reckless enough to change the colours to yellow and purple, that would be arbitrary. Deciding among a relatively small group of editors that the plain table needed to utilise colour, and then adding the colour to various but not all tables, is far more "an arbitrary style change" and creates an inconsistency (yet another one) that didn't exist before. Why is one choice arbitrary and one not? Rossrs (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this either. Am I to believe that the first editor to get to an article can lock down its presentation style for ever and ever? Even in the face of pretty strong support for the idea that changes might be an improvement? To me, that is pretty much what WP:OWN tries to prevent and does not agree with the principle that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Reyk _YO! 11:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's never that black-and-white, unfortunately. Where a particular style is only a matter of personal preference, then our guidelines require other editors to respect that (because it prevents edit-warring over something that is only a personal preference). Sometimes editors feel that changing certain elements of a page is an improvement, but others believe that they are simply making a mere style change unnecessarily. The question (as here) depends on whether the change is an improvement. Those making the change think it is, and see those resisting it as 'owning' the article; those thinking it only a style change see it as unnecessary. Each side has a good-faith case, but neither can convince the other of it. --RexxS (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope

This discussion has been marked closed several times, but it continues; some of the arguments above mystify me and this discussion appears to be headed for a slippery slope if not resolved, so please let's not mark it closed again.

RexxS, I'm particularly confused by some of your feedback, because at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Ormulum/archive1 you understand the reasoning behind not switching citation style, but here we find many editors expressing different opinions, contrary to WP:CITEHOW. I don't want to derail this discussion, so perhaps you can explain the apparent contradiction on my talk?

The slippery slope: editors above appear to be endorsing the use of citation templates in articles that don't use them, and allowing Merridew to continue this behavior against guidelines. Certainly bare URLs are not preferred, but neither are citation templates, and many of us hate them because they so clutter the text. If we're headed down a slippery slope that endorses them, here are some counterexamples to refocus the issue away from Merridew's behavior, which I do believe is disruptive.

1. Tourette syndrome (TS). I largely wrote and cited that article myself. I hate citation templates because they clutter the text and are subject to the ever-changing whims of whomever edits and changes them. I cited TS manually because it is easier to grab the info from PMID and format it to conform with WP:ITALICS (journal names, etc) and WP:MOSBOLD (volume number), without cluttering the text. On the other hand, I endorse the use of citation templates at other medical articles that are frequently edited by numerous editors, since most of them won't understand an individual style used on an article edited mostly by one person. If Merridew decides to impose citation templates on TS, I'm going to be kicking and screaming.

2. Venezuela suite of articles. There has been a long-standing problem on those articles, as no particular citation style has been endorsed across the suite (as in medical articles, which largely use the Diberri template filler); the citation style used in Venezuela articles is a mish-mash because of the number of different editors who edit those articles and format citations differently (unlike TS). When Rd232 starts a new article, he uses his own citation style-- one I have never encountered elsewhere-- but if he started the article, guidelines say we should continue his style (which never happens because few understand his style-- I try to conform, but I can't bring myself to violate ITALCS and MOSBOLD). Are those arguing against Gimme here willing to say that we should alter Rd232's style when he started the article with a consistent style? He also hates citation templates, but his citation style does not follow WP:ITALICS or WP:MOSBOLD.

3. The Ormulum FAR linked above-- citation style was changed without consensus, and it's just plain ugly. (Added clarification: some editors' writing style is more conducive to parenthetical citations, and they should not be switched to the cite.php format, as specifically mentioned at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I disagree with most weighing in here-- Merridew appears to be on a pointy campaign, while Gimme appears to be trying to enforce guidelines because he understands the slippery slope. If some handle isn't gotten on this matter, it's looking to head the direction of the most lame date-delinking case. No one should be unilaterally imposing citation templates in articles without gaining consensus on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

? I don't use bold in references, and per normal convention across many citation styles (and WP:ITALICS), I italicise books and journal titles. My citation style is a minor variation of APA style (in that I prefer to put article/chapter names in double quotes for clarity). Rd232 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, I may have misstated your style (I didn't go and re-check), but the point is, it's consistent, but new editors to the articles don't follow it, resulting in a mish-mash including the addition of citation templates, which is against guidelines. This is an example of the slippery slope that I hope will refocus this discussion with concrete examples unrelated to Gimme or Merridew. (I think it's true there probably isn't a MOSBOLD issue, as that refers to journal volumes which aren't found frequently in Ven articles, but on Italics, you italicize websites, which isn't normally done-- that's what I can't bring myself to do, since I'm a MOS maven on that sort of thing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Our principle is very well established: each article should be left in the citation style that has been established, and newer references should (over time) be reformatted back into that style. If a well-established article does not use citation templates, the references shouldn't be converted to use them. If it does use them, the references shouldn't be converted away from them. If it uses footnotes, it shouldn't be changed to Harvard referencing. If it uses Harvard referencing, it shouldn't be changed to footnotes. Going around changing styles on numerous articles violates this principle and is not appropriate as an editing pattern. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly my understanding of the issue and the problem that is occurring here. On the Venezuela articles, very few of them ever reach GA or FA potential, so the issue has never come to a head, but if an article started by Rd232 were to reach GA potential, citations would need to be converted back to his style unless alternate consensus were developed on talk. I do not understand the support here for Merridew's campaign, and am dismayed at the statements made about Gimme enforcing guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If I was looking at an article at GAN or FAC, and there had been a change in citation styles (to discover that would involve digging in the history). I really doubt I would quarrel with it. Unless editors involved with the article complained, I don't see why it should be an issue, as long as it is consistent. And yes, I do know the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This has never been tested (the original editor of the Ormulum FA is gone, so he didn't complain), and I certainly wouldn't hold up a FAC over this, but the slippery slope exists nonetheless, and my concern that it is headed the direction of the lame date-delinking case (another area in which I would never hold up promotion of a FAC, but that engendered heated and lame discussion, which is why I say we need to get a rational handle on this rather than disparaging Gimme.) Let's suppose I'm hit by a truck tomorrow, and someone starts adding citation templates to TS ... or a Venezuela article gets stalled at GAN because Rd232 wants his original style respected-- how is this going to be resolved? We have a guideline for a reason, and both CITEHOW and WIAFA are clear. Gimme is enforcing guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could run after the ambulance for you :) ... I'm thinking judgment call, don't want to be too rigid in setting up guidelines in advance because as you imply, we can't anticipate all the fine points in advance. That bit of policy was not handed down on stone tablets, you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but. What happened at Ormulum is inexcusable, because it opens the article to the potential for another FAR if anyone complains, rightly, about the citation style imposed upon the article by mostly one editor, who didn't appear to understand WIAFA. I could be pointy about it and insist that the FAR not be closed until this is corrected, but 1) I don't think that would be helpful considering other issues surrounding the deteriorating environment at FAR, and 2) one editor decided to ignore the citation debacle and simply bring the article to standard, which is generally a good thing. But the result is not optimal-- the original editor's writing is more conducive to parenthetical citation. My argument is that we should not be disparaging Gimme here for keeping the bigger picture in sight, and we should be resolving this in a way that won't lead to another lame date-delinking debacle. There will likely be a judgment call at Orumulum to keep the article FA in spite of the change, but what if someone later complains? It's a slippery slope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This is basically an issue of consensus: people shouldn't go around changing existing styles unilaterally (with the exception of making style formats consistent within an article, when there is a clear style consensus developed). Anything else should be resolved by discussion on the talk page. To return to the original discussion subject - if Merridew is continuing to go around not respecting existing style usage, that's a problem to be demonstrated and then to be addressed. Failing to demonstrate/address should not raise concerns that policy is being overturned. Rd232 13:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, and that is how this discussion needs to refocus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we had turned to discussing policy instead of conduct. Well, looking it over, I strongly suggest a RFC/U.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope my counterexamples that don't involve Merridew or Gimme helped bring the issue into more clear focus. Perhaps we could avoid an RFC/U by simply asking Merridew to stop? We won't benefit from an RFC on citation style because we don't yet have a good test case-- this only comes to a head at FAC and FAR where citation style must be respected, Ormulum is the best example so far, and Geogre is gone and no one else is willing to take up that crusade, since the article was brought to standard. Further, we already have a guideline, and an RFC is unlikely to overturn it. I think-- I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been RFC's on this issue here and here. The last one has links to where this has been discussed in other places too. I thought some difs might be helpful to this discussion. --CrohnieGal 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Xanderliptak, redux

Xanderliptak (talk · contribs)

I saw this edit on my watchlist, and reverted it, as I see no reason for the removal.

I then looked at his contribs and saw a problem. He is systematically removing all images he has uploaded to Commons from use here, and has requested speedy deletion of same on Commons (which cannot obviously be dealt with here; I included this detail merely for background). Not wishing to create intense drama, I have not reverted the latest edits; I believe this is symptomatic of behaviour that has been going on for quite some time. (See also, from almost a year ago, very similar situation). Namely, this user appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that he gets to control use of images he has created after he has uploaded them. Beyond that I cannot speculate as to motivation.

I am honestly not sure what the course of action here needs to be. This is clearly problematic, and repeated, behaviour. User has been notified. → ROUX ₪ 05:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I jut came across this through a page on my watchlist. I note that Xander and Roux have some history, so I thought I would, as an uninvolved party, concur with Roux's reading of the situation. As it happens I think the one example of an edit that Roux provides is not a good one because (for unrelated reasons) that content should not be there. But the broader issue still stands. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit I provided is simply the one I ran across first (I use a hack on my watchlist to only display changes since the last time I loaded the page, then scroll to the bottom and work my way up). There were other edits, but seeing that there was a pattern I refrained from reverting them all and instead brought the issue here. Agreed that the specific first edit I provided can and should be discussed on the relevant talk page; the general issue is what needs to be examined here. → ROUX ₪ 05:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the past history; Roux has suffered quite a bit of abuse in this interaction. I would say Roux is correct that there is a behaviour issue, but I've also seen XL change behaviour when approached the right way. The core issue currently seems to be a licensing dispute. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear I did not attempt to discuss this with Xanderliptak, as discussion with him has proven to be less than fruitful. I figured better to gain the attention of uninvolved people. → ROUX ₪ 06:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploads to Commons are freely licensed. The licenses are not revocable. So we can use them, whether he wants us to or not. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 12:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was the core issue that came up a few days ago. Presumably Xander figures if he can't get what he wants, then he'll delete them and then nobody can have what they want. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't presume tell people what I want. You showed up late to a discussion and tried to talk about things that the discussion was not even concerned about. Again, you are here talking about issues no one else has even brought up. XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Roux reverted the edit here: and when Hamiltonstone complained on the talk page, Roux explained his rationale here: I don't see any need for this board, but rather, discussion should begin on the article talk page. Xandarliptak is as free to edit, and be bold as any other Misplaced Pages editor. Every edit he makes that Roux does not agree with cannot be brought here. It should be on the article talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. You have clearly not paid any attention to what I wrote or what is happening here. → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is this ANI even about? People complain about the images in the article, I have to argue to keep them in. More people complain, so I take them out. Then those that wanted them out complain I take them out? What kind of logic is that? What is all the Commons talk and "we can use them even if he doesn't want us to"? I was the one always arguing to use hem, ROUX and others were saying we should not. I just finally gave in and said take them out. ROUX should have been happy. Side note, I did get what I wanted on Commons. ROUX and Beyond My Ken were trying to pull up past arguments, but Commons ignored them. The Commons issue had nothing to do with using or not using images, but about what the licensing summary being deficient. XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That was on one article where the inclusion of unsupported elements was the nature of the dispute, not the inclusion of the coat of arms in general. 'All this Commons talk' is merely, as I said, background; you are attempting to have images which you freely and irrevocably licenced deleted, an issue that will be dealt with on Commons. I never tried to pull up past arguments on Commons, because I did not make a single comment on Commons; once again you appear to be unable to comprehend that you must provide diffs of alleged behaviour and not merely say whatever you want. This ANI is about approximately thirty instances of you removing images you have created from articles where they very clearly belong. The same images you are attempting to have deleted. The same behaviour you engaged in nine months ago (discussed here, you may also wish to see your own talk page to refresh your memory). → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to tell what you really want, since you change your story so often. :) But why all this excitement over drawings of family crests and such? This ain't Rembrant stuff, you know. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The better question is why is Roux following Xanderliptak? And why is Hamiltonstone claiming he got here from his watchlist when everybody can read this exchange for themselves:

I do not understand why there is any information about the Kennedy coat of arms on this page, which is about the surname, and serves as a disambig page for people to locate relevant Kennedys as subjects of WP articles. Move it to an article called Kennedy (coats of arms) or to the pages relating to relevant individuals or families, but surely get it off this page? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved – James agrees he made an embarassing booboo, and we all learned something about Google Books.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)