Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cyde

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

[edit]

Certain editors are using Ref converter to convert articles from {{Ref}} or {{ref_harvard}} to <ref>. However, other editors have objected to this conversion, and prefer to use the {{Ref}} template for article citation. Nonetheless, Users are repeatedly using the ref converter on certain articles, despite requests on the Article Talk page and commented into the Article to not use the ref conversion

Note: much of this statement was originally written by User:Evilphoenix who is on wikibreak and has written a brief statement below (but has not currently signed as certifier).

Note2: This RfC is not a referendum on whether m:Cite.php is a good technology. All participant agree on this question.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

J. K. Rowling

[edit]
  1. March 11th, 2006 - March 30th, 2006: User:Evilphoenix and User:Serendipodous work to properly cite and verify J. K. Rowling, going from approximately three citations to nearly fifty cited references - [1]
  2. 02:31, March 30, 2006: User:Jacoplane converts the article using Cyde's ref converter [2]
  3. 04:17, March 30, 2006: User:Evilphoenix reverts the change - [3]
  4. 04:21, March 30, 2006: Evilphoenix leaves a note on Jacoplane's Talk page asking him not to convert the article again. [4]
  5. 04:26, March 30, 2006: Jacoplane responds to Evilphoenix, explaining his reasoning but agreeing not to convert the article again - [5]
  6. 11:04, April 16, 2006: User:Fallout boy converts the citations - [6]
  7. 21:47, April 16, 2006: User:Evilphoenix reverts the conversion - [7]
  8. 22:14, April 16, 2006: Fallout boy comments on Evilphoenix's Talk page - [8]
  9. 00:14, April 17, 2006: Evilphoenix replies, explaining his reasoning and pointing to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes - [9]
  10. 00:27, April 17, 2006: Evilphoenix posts to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes, commenting on the recent changes to J. K. Rowling, explaining that he does not like the new citation system, and asking for input on the issue - [10].
    The conversation as it is on April 23rd, 2006: [11]
    The discussion includes:
    1. Evilphoenix's comment
    2.User:FrancisTyers against cite.php due to the messiness of having the entire citation in the article text: "I can't stand having the whole reference in the article body." - [12]
    3.User:Omegatron against cite.php due to wanting all the reference text in the references section, mentioning a proposal he has made to address that: "It really needs to be changed so that the reference text is in the References section, where it actually appears. I get the impression that people were in such a rush to get a real references system that they didn't try it in realistic situations much before implementing it. It's better than templates, but still needs a lot of work." - [13]
    4.User:Dmharvey preferring just one entry in the References section for each reference, instead of the multiple entries generated by cite.php -[14]
    5.User:MONGO against cite.php, stating his agreement with Evilphoenix's position: "In some articles, some editors prefer a different look, one which is approved by Wikipedia, unless someone wants to change that too. There seems to be a steamrolling effect here, where a relative few have gone and started altering articles, without discussing the changes in the article talk page." - [15]
    6.User:Doug Bell against cite.php, agreeing with MONGO: "The manner in which this is being pushed into implementation is disturbing." - [16]
    7.User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters against cite.php, citing similar reasons to Evilphoenix and preferring Harvard referencing"Specifically, in scientifically oriented articles, an alphabetical list of bibliographic references that may be multiply referred to by name is vastly better than an order-of-first-occurence list of references by number only." - [17],"There are good things about m:Cite.php, but there are also a number of distinct disadvantages with it. Shoving it down the throats of editors who actually work on a specific article is obnoxious and in bad faith. Claiming that Harvard references are suddenly deprecated, in the absence of any WP process, but simply because a tool has been written to do conversions, is even worse."[18] [19],"...those decisions are for the editors actively involved in a given article."[20]
    8.User:Ceyockey advocating "if an article is today primarly of ref/note or cite.php format, stick with how it presently stands until a better cite.php function can be created." - [21]
    9.User:Jon Awbrey : "Once you get more than a dozen or so items in your list of references and/or bibliography, then it's time to use an alphabetized list for both. The list of references needs to be one place, not scattered throughout the text." - [22]
    Conversely...,
    1.User:Circeus preferring cite.php because he dislikes editing information in two different places - [23]
    2.User:Cyde commenting in favor of cite.php - [24]
    3.User:David Kernow commenting that {{Ref}} is problematic, but preferring a better distinction between footnotes and references - [25]
  11. 07:35, April 22, 2006: User:Sandstein converts the article - [26]
  12. 16:38, April 22, 2006: User:Jacoplane reverts the conversion with edit summary (changing back to old refs. I like the new refs, but they do not work for this article, which has references listed alphabetically.) - [27]
  13. 18:35, April 22, 2006: Evilphoenix leaves a comment on Sandstein's Talk page pointing to the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes and asking Sandstein not to convert the article again. [28]
  14. 18:44, April 22, 2006: Sandstein responds on his Talk page, disagreeing with some of Evilphoenix's requests but agreeing not to convert the article again.
  15. 19:07, April 22, 2006: Sandstein adds a comment to the article asking other users not to convert the article again - [29]
  16. 20:22, April 22, 2006: The very next edit, User:Nooby god converts the article again - [30]
  17. 20:38, April 22, 2006: User:Cyde removes commenting on a commented out Citation that was prepared with the expectation of eventually being used in the article, and therefore was not properly converted using Cyde's converter - [31].
  18. 20:40, April 22, 2006: Cyde comments on Talk:J. K. Rowling about the conversion having been accomplished - [32]
  19. 01:16, April 23, 2006: Evilphoenix reverts - [33]
  20. 01:26, April 23, 2006: Evilphoenix responds to Cyde's comment, rather frustradedly asking for the article not to be converted to cite.php again, pointing to the conversation on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes - [34]
  21. 06:27, April 23, 2006: Sandstein responds to Evilphoenix's comment on the Talk page, concerned about Evilphoenix's aggressive tone - "I for one am reluctant to second-guess the regular contributors to this article as to what note numbering system is most appropriate, so I've added a comment to that effect to the references section."[35]
  22. 18:04, April 23, 2006: The very next edit to the article, User:MPerel converts the article - [36]
  23. 18:06, April 23, 2006: Cyde comes back in to make the same commenting out as before - [37].
  24. 18:37, April 23, 2006 Evilphoenix reverts [38]
  25. 16:47, April 23, 2006 - Evilphoenix responds to Sandstein, explaining "I've repeatedly stated my reasons for disliking the cite.php system, reasons which I believe are valid and that I am not alone in holding." - [39]
  26. 18:03, April 23, 2006 - Cyde accuses Evilphoenix of violating the WP:OWN policy and stating: "..you are doing more harm than good" - [40]

Retreat of glaciers since 1850

[edit]

"But in the case of Retreat of glaciers since 1850, we actually had this specific discussion several months ago, and made a conscious, consensus decision to go with Harvard referencing. We're not idiots: we made that decision for specific reasons... maybe consensus can change with discussion, but not by fiat." - [41]

  1. 03:42, April 18, 2006: Cyde uses refconvertor to change Retreat of glaciers since 1850 from Harvard style to cite.php., [42]
  2. 03:46, April 18, 2006: Cyde corrects one citation to article that wasn't changed by ref convertor and uses edit summary of "Grrrr, stupid malformed ref", [43]
  3. 04:37, April 18, 2006: MONGO reverts back to Harvard style with edit summary of "Please do not alter the Harv style referencing...it makes the article text too difficult to edit with the huge refences in the text itself", [44]
  4. 04:58, April 18, 2006: Cyde comments on article discussion page that cite.php is "demonstrably better" and reminds MONGO that nobody owns an article. [45]. Without waiting for a response, Cyde immediately,
  5. 04:58, April 18, 2006: Cyde reverts MONGO and claims that "Cite.php is demonstrably better, see talk", [46]
  6. 05:06, April 18, 2006: MONGO responds on the talk page that Cyde doesn't own the article either. MONGO asks to see who determined that this new citation style was approved by a concensus of editors. [47]
  7. 05:10, April 18, 2006: MONGO provides diffs that demonstrate that the new citation style "takes up too much space in the text of the article" and asks to know who voted on this new style. [48]
  8. 05:14, April 18, 2006: Cyde responds with the summary on all editing windows about articles being editied mercilessly, claims that cite.php is the "wave of the future" and that "It wasn't really ever "voted on" — the older reference templates simply became deprecated when it was unveiled". [49]
  9. 05:37, April 18, 2006:MONGO responds with "I seem to miss how the editing window is more manageable when much of it is taken up by reference within the article text. The harvard style was perferred by most that worked on this article as it is alphabetical. [50]
  10. 07:53, April 18, 2006: MONGO reverts back to Harvard style citations with edit summary "I have not been convinved that cite.php is better and after looking over discussions in the footnotes pages, I am still not convinced" [51]
Note
On April 18 Retreat of glaciers since 1850 was FA on wikipedia's main page [52] - intrusive changes to featured articles while they're on main page can be experienced as somewhat disruptive.

Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:NOT
  3. WP:OWN
  4. Wikipedia:Footnotes#Converting citation styles ("[...] seek consensus first, before converting citation styles")
  5. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  6. Wikipedia:Footnote3 (boilerplate: "For linked Harvard references, realised with [...] templates [...], this how-to guideline continues to be active.")
  7. Wikipedia:Citing sources (grants wikipedians editorial freedom regarding citation styles)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  • Many requests to add a caveat about the non-consensus use of refconverter to its project page and/or to disable its use where such specific problems are identified (all rebuffed by Cyde):
  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56] (Francis Schonken mentions prior Arbcom ruling against same behavior)
  5. [57]
  6. [58] (LotLE's first request in this regard)
  7. [59] (Cyde's claim that GPL license absolves all his actions)
  8. [60] (Evilphoenix reiterates LotLE's requests for caveat in tool page)
  9. [61] (Evilphoenix repeats/clarifies caveta request)
  10. [62] (Cyde claims his tool does not do what it does)
  11. [63] (Evilphoenix requests blacklist feature)
  12. [64] (Cyde claims that blacklist cannot be performed programmatically)
  13. [65] (Evilphoenix requests blacklist be fully implemented rather than just hinted at)
  14. [66] (LotLE clarifies "random conversion" feature and emphasizes WP consensus process)
  • General requests not to edit war over imposing reference styles preferred by Cyde (also consistently rudely rebuffed):
  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]
  5. [71]
  6. [72]
  7. [73]
  8. [74]
  • Challenge/insults about "bring it on" and encouragement of an RfC by Cyde:
  1. [75]
  2. [76] (Evilphoenix' mention of writing draft RfC)
  3. [77] (Cyde's challenge to Evilphoenix)
  4. [78] (Cyde's start at insulting LotLE's requests)
  5. [79]
  6. [80] ("Bring it on" challenge by Cyde)
  7. [81] (Evilphoenix tries to deescalate by turning it away from user-conduct RfC)
  8. [82] (More insults by Cyde against LotLE)
  9. [83] (Taunting about RfC)
  • Attempts to insert caveat language in refconverter tool description (deleted by Cyde):

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 06:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (added wikipedia:footnotes, WP:POINT, WP:FN3 and wikipedia:citing sources as applicable guidelines above, hope that's OK) --Francis Schonken 07:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

Statement by Evilphoenix

[edit]

I'd like to comment(without having yet read what anyone else has had to say) that this RfC was moved from my User space, where I was not yet intending to file it, to the RfC space, without my permission and against my wishes, while I have been (and still am on) Wikibreak. While I am not particularly happy with Cyde's actions, I feel that when I last was on Wikipedia (two days ago) that Cyde was at least discussing things. I feel that the evidence I was gathering was more to deal with the conduct issue, more than the issue of whether or not things should be converted using his ref converter, it was how the ref converter was being approached. Again, there was still discussion ongoing when I went on break. I feel that these are two seperate issues, and I'm not sure this is going to end up being the best way to approach dealing with them. Now I'm going to look and see what's been said in my absence. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cyde

[edit]
Lulu also has a previous RfC that is worth looking into.

Lulu has painted a very one-side picture of this dispute. Here is my attempt to give you both sides of the story.

Description

[edit]

This is the first time Lulu spoke to me in regards to this latest round of the conflict. Here are some key bits:

  • This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process. What you are doing is wrong, and harms Wikipedia.
  • Unfortunately, I will support a user conduct RfC against you for this misbehavior. It's really crossed the line.
  • I certainly do not think you should be blocked...

Here, we see he is already threatening to file an RfC (which would be this, by the way) in his first contact with me in days. Lulu isn't interested in resolving this dispute at all; for whatever reason, he's simply out for blood.


This is the second time Lulu spoke to me in this conflict. Here are some key bits:

  • This sort of reaction makes me think that, in fact, a short-term block really would be an approrpriate remedy.
  • You have actively encouraged harmful edits... and have performed a large number of harmful edits yourself...
  • [Y]ou advocate that everyone just declare: "Fuck consensus!" to push your particular idea about reference styles.
  • I'm quite willing to take it as far as arbcom if your abuse continues.

Here, he is already threatening me with blocks and ArbCom. At this point I basically just started ignoring him, and he responded by editing the Ref converter pages with some very dubious charges. He also abused the Ref converter updates list and spammed vaguely threatening warnings to over a dozen users' talk pages; here is an example. Here are some choice bits:

  • Unreflective use of refconverter is causing many problems, and in many cases actively harming Wikipedia.
  • This is extremely disrespectful to other Wikipedia editors, and a gross violation of process.
  • You may also want to take a look at User:Evilphoenix/ref conversion. This is a sketch of an RfC that may be filed to try to resolve this problem (I see no reason you might not opine there, even while it lives in userspace).

Upon realizing that his attempts to intimidate me with various threats weren't working, he went ahead and threatened all of my users directly with this RfC. And then he went through with it all targeted the RfC at "Cyde and ref conv users", but he later modified that to read merely "some ref conv users".

I don't know why Lulu seems so antagonized at me, but his behavior is questionable, to say the least. He started off in a very negative tone and made it clear that there was going to be no reasoning with him; it was his way or the highway. This RfC is the inevitable conclusion of that. If you read his statements you'll see that he cherry-picked his diffs so as to exclude all of his own questionable behavior that I have outlined above. And if you actually read my diffs that he's linked to, you'll see that they're nowhere near as bad as he makes them out to be. Lulu is on some sort of a crusade against ref converter right now and I haven't the foggiest idea why. All I can say is that it is sad it had to come to this.

Now, if you'll compare my interactions with Evilphoenix, you'll see that they were the polar opposite of Lulu's interactions with me. We were civil with each other and were making progress towards a resolution. I was working on a blacklist of sorts to prevent the same pages from always showing up in the WikiLinks program. We made so much progress in such a short time that Evilphoenix blanked the page, saying, "I have temporarily cleared this page. Within the page history is a sketch of an RfC that may or may not end up being filed. Discussions have been ongoing with the involved parties, so I don't personally feel that it's really the time to move forward with this particular RfC right now." But then Lulu unilaterally reverted the page and went live with it, keeping intact the parts that Evilphoenix had originally written that Evilphoenix thought were on their way to being resolved.

In short, the entire reason this whole mess blew up is because of Lulu's irascible, incorrigible, and abrasive behavior. I am perfectly capable of having calm and reasoned discussions with other users, as my interaction with Evilphoenix and many other editors illustrates. The problem is, it takes two to be nice and rational, and Lulu simply wasn't having any of it. Through all of his various posts I've linked to this in statement I believe I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lulu's behavior is unacceptable and needs to be examined by the wider community at large. Consider this my motion to rescope this RfC to include Lulu. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

[edit]

I am less concerned with detailing specific past edits than with moving forward in a productive manner, and with an understanding by all involved editors that consensus must be reached among those involved in editing particular articles. There are a few general categories of problems with some actions by User:Cyde and a few other editors:

  • Conversion of articles to m:Cite.php format without checking whether consensus exists among article editors to do so. Often Cyde's semi-bot "refconverter" is being used to do this; but the issue of what particular tool is used (or if it is done manually) is rather secondary to the underlying fact of a change being made. The tool just makes non-cooperative actions that much easier.
    • In cases where the current standard of citation/footnoting is poor or haphazard, any attention to notes is generally an improvement: so no harm, no foul.
    • In cases where current notes are fairly extensive and of relatively good quality, the issue of conversion should be addressed on the article talk page prior to performing a conversion. In many such pages, the issue has simply never been discussed, and few editors have objections to a change to m:Cite.php.
    • In cases where a discussion has specifically occurred, and consensus was specificially reached to use a style other than m:Cite.php, making a unilateral change shows extremely bad faith. Retreat of glaciers since 1850 was the article that I happened to be a major editor on, and that made it to the front page, where such an explicit consensus to use Harvard referencing was reached (actually, Doug Bell's tweak of {{ref_harv}}. In that article, Cyde repeatedly reverted to the anti-consensus version while it was on the front page, against repeated requests not to do so.
  • Mistatement of the status of referencing technologies on MediaWiki. In point of fact, several styles are explicitly endorsed as co-equal guidelines at Wikipedia:Footnotes: i.e. Cite.php footnotes are not the only way to make footnotes. Cyde has published misleading or deceptive statements in a number of places, including Signpost, claiming that "Harvard references are deprecated, and m:Cite.php is the officially endorsed format" (or words to that effect). Such attempts to mislead other editors who may be less involved in the technology aspects show bad faith.
    • Related to the last point, denying the continuing drawbacks of m:Cite.php, and claiming it has only benefits, is rather dishonest.
  • Automated tools are wonderful to have, but the capabilities added to refconverter, and the documentation surrounding it, that encourage mass conversion of articles that editors are otherwise uninvolved with, encourages abuse. In particular, the recently added function of "Randomly select a page to modify without requesting consensus" is a particularly strong incitement of semi-vandalism using the semi-bot. It appears like much of the behavior of Cyde and a couple other editors follows the logic of allowing the existence of a tool to take precedence over the wisdom of using it for specific articles. Tools should only exist to aid in actions that are desirable for reasons other than the opportunity to use the tool.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 21:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 02:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is too much fooling around with ref styles going on - this is very bad and must stop. Merecat 04:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancillary comments by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

[edit]

(Note: Cyde has since corrected his misstatements that Lulu refers to below.)

Most of what Cyde adds in his statement is false. For example, what he characterizes as the "first time Lulu has ever spoken directly to me." was something like the fifth or sixth comment (all on related matters) I had left on Cyde's talk page; he had previously responded to several of them. I also engaged in some earlier threads involving him at some other talk pages around this issue. There's also some factual errors in things like the number of editors whom I contacted to express my concerns about misuse of refconverter; but in general, I did indeed contact several (and "threatened" none). I did not, of course, revert Evilphoenix' talk page either, as Cyde claims; I did, however, move Evilphoenix' draft RfC to this live one (how that gets called "reversion", I can't even begin to imagine).

But those sort of things seem like really petty matters to quibble about. I am simply trying to convince Cyde to encourage appropriate use of refconverter rather than encouraging misuse of the tool. I am happy the tool exists, and acknowledge that the majority of uses of it have been quite appropriate. Rather than try to prolong endless personalizations, I really would like to reach a compromise in which appropriate guidance is provided to users of refconverter; a few words of change to its project page would resolve this whole matter. This rather narrow concern is why I did not bother reporting the many, many examples of personal attacks that Cyde engaged in around these issues, nor add that issues like WP:PA, WP:AGF and the like to the dispute issues. I am thick-skinned enough to forget about those actions, and really only care about Wikipedia article space not undergoing continuing harm from misconduct by Cyde.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wholeheartedly. --MONGO 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lulu's being rather magnaminously forgiving of the "ancillary issues", but still I endorse. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is too much fooling around with ref styles going on - this is very bad and must stop. Merecat 04:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

[edit]

(preliminary remark:) I applied some tweaks to the Statement of the dispute above.[84]:

Hope that is OK.

Shouldn't this be renamed to an RfC about citation conversion software?

Cyde (and others) are correct: this RfC isn't exclusively about Cyde's behaviour, and maybe that behaviour isn't even the main point. For me, the main point of this RfC is: Don't make software that, without warning to the user of the software, can short-circuit ArbCom rulings. In this case: conversion of Harvard references to numbered footnotes (which are different citation styles).

So I think the software should be made thus that it warns the user that such conversions are possibly contentious, and should (preferably - or: necessarily) be discussed on the talk pages of such articles prior to conversion.

Whether conversion of {{ref}} type numbered footnotes to <ref> type numbered footnotes on a systematic scale is a good idea, and whether this can be done without prior discussion on the talk page of the article in question, are other topics that can be discussed in this RfC as far as I'm concerned. The quoted ArbCom ruling didn't say anything about that (<ref> type numbered footnotes didn't even exist at the time), and the present content of the applicable guidelines would allow such conversions. But we can ask ourselves the question whether that would be a good idea.

Tentatively, I'd say this can be done by "refconverter" type of software, but maybe as a precaution, first see what the outcome of discussions like the following leads to:

(knowing this is hardly the place to make publicity for a guideline proposal, but nonetheless:) And maybe have a look at wikipedia:semi-bots, an attempt to approach the kind of problems treated in this RfC in a more generic way (and less ad hominem). --Francis Schonken 08:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the J. K. Rowling article

Just for clarity: I just voted to convert the J. K. Rowling article to cite.php, using Cyde's refconverter ASAP. In that article it's all only about numbered footnotes (not Harvard references), and the numbered footnotes-with-templates as defended by EvilP et al. are a faulty implementation of WP:FN3 (while not switching to "label" variant for multiple references to the same footnote, and while the numbering is further disturbed by a footnote not linked from the text), where Cyde's refconverter proved to be able to put straight this erroneous implementation of numbered footnotes. --Francis Schonken 16:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

[edit]
  1. BTW, FS' minor tweaks to the statement are good; I agree with his shift of focus generally, but there is a user conduct element here. I think, unfortunately, that many endorsers of some statements are treating this as a referendum on whether m:Cite.php is "good", which misses the point. Clearly m:Cite.php is good in some general sense (not perfect, and not universally applicable, but generally a useful technology). The issue at hand is about the misuse of an automated tool, and generally about imposition of a technology against consensus on articles. That part is bad, and is a user conduct issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --MONGO 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing? (by Francis 21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit]

As far as I'm concerned this RfC can be closed. Don't know about closing procedures for RfC's. Regardless of whether I'd be doing this by the book: I want to make it clear that I have no knowledge of any remaining issues that need solving with Cyde (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cyde#The other user conduct issue for the last one there might have been in which I'd have interest, now closed).

Whether problems weren't actually inflated by having recourse to RfC: I suppose they were. On the plus side: the problems, whether they were big or minor, they got solved. And I'd be happy to close this somewhat artificial way of tackling issues. --Francis Schonken 21:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who agree that this RfC can be closed

[edit]
  1. LotLE×talk 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC): I'm fine with closing. The Ref converter project page now contains some appriate warnings. The tool itself could do to add some as well, and Cyde could stand to tone down his belligerent responses to concerns in the future. But nothing useful further is going to come of this particular RfC.[reply]

Response by Cyde

[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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

There is no RfC here (and certainly not a user conduct RfC). I have done nothing wrong and even the originator of this RfC, Evilphoenix, thinks it's too early to go this route and would rather continue making progress in discussions (see here, which Lulu subsequently reverted). Most of the actions listed above have nothing to do with me other than that my open source tool was used; by the same token, can we file an RfC against Linus Torvalds because some hackers use Linux? --Cyde Weys 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. jaco♫plane 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thatcher131 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC) Individual editors who misuse any tool should be held accountable; the creator of the tool is not responsible for the actions of others.[reply]
  3. Fallout boy 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nooby_god | Talk 21:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JoshuaZ 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC) What Thatcher said. JoshuaZ 22:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. RFC on Cyde's conduct? He created an excellent tool. People love it, people are using it responsibly. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Apr. 25, '06 [09:14] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  8. Hey, maybe I'll start an RfC on Interiot because the edit counter is down (through no fault of his).@@ Really, a little common sense would go a long way here. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Er, I mean.. conversion utilities don't convert pages, people convert pages. Or something. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is an Rfc on what, ultimately, is a content dispute in which Cyde's main involvement is his tool. Suggest this Rfc be closed and a new Rfc be opened on his excellent tool. (Sarcasm mode intentional.) KillerChihuahua?!? 12:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nonsense RFC. Older ref styles have been deprecated. Read the guidelines. What the real issue here? FeloniousMonk 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Improper subject for RfC. Filing this is close to disruptive. Jonathunder 22:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ashibaka tock 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Polotet 16:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rory096 08:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This is absolutely ridiculous. -Colin Kimbrell 03:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Most notably per Locke/Thatcher and Jonathunder/Felonious. Joe 05:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. KimvdLinde 05:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Johnleemk

[edit]

While Cyde could have been a bit less zealous in his promotion of the tool, I can see little wrongdoing on his part. It is not his fault if other editors abuse his tool. The glacier article clearly has all the indications of a revert war, so yeah, he was wrong there. I should note that J.K. Rowling has a really disturbing footnoting system (try it for yourself) that confuses the hell out of readers, however useful to researchers or editors it might be. Cyde has definitely been overzealous in promoting m:Cite, but you gotta' admit that {{ref}}, etc. ain't pretty either — especially looking at how Rowling's article uses them. This is unrelated to Cyde in particular, but Lulu has been spamming user talk pages complaining about Cyde's tool (probably in a misguided effort to impose a moratorium on its usage), and a bunch of other stuff has been going on as well. Cyde is definitely not the only one at fault here, and at least 2/3rds of this RfC have nothing to do with him. If he wanted to play tit for tat, he could just as well bring up Lulu's conduct, which has been just as questionable as his (sticking NPOV tags on pages in Cyde's userspace, etc.). Oh, and one last thing... Johnleemk | Talk 17:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I apologize for the glacier page; that was the first and last time I've ever edit-warred over references. --Cyde Weys 17:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. RefConverter is a great tool. It is up to the users to decide on whether they find it useful. Harvard reference system is certainly better for printed text but it is completely out of place for hyperlinked footnotes/references. The whole concept of bringing a RfC on this issue seems to me as an abuse of process. People must understand that whatever effort you have put on an article, you are not the owner (NB: Not talking about anyone in particular). A possible compromise would be to use both systems, cite.php for "live" references and an alphabetical list following Harvard style, to be added to the end of the article. Changes could be implemented to the software to allow this (as far as I see it). Regards, --Asterion talk to me 18:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Guettarda 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Snoutwood (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Thatcher131 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I fully endorse what Johnleemk has wrote. Asterion's comments are also quite important and should be seriously considered. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  8. Yep. Note also that the tool's users (including myself) have done nothing wrong, except possibly not first looking at the edit history to see if the conversion has been attempted and reverted in the past (I've since added a cautionary notice to that effect to the tool's page). This tool's usage has been completely uncontroversial on all the dozens (low hundreds?) of articles that have been converted, except the handful that now remain stuck at the top of the tool's to-do list (this should be adressed by Cyde, who otherwise deserves praise for his work on the tool). Sandstein 19:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. WP:OWN clearly applies here. Trying to penalize a useful tool that many users are thankful for just for the questionably dubious actions of a couple is simply a bad thing. The fact that this page was moved from the subpage of a user that does not consider an RfC to be necessary yet indicates that this is awfully premature. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. And the <ref> format is also better than the {{ref}} format. David | Talk 21:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This seems almost like if someone filed an RfC because people were using Interiot's tool too much to make RfA voting decisions. Not that extreme, but almost. the ref-converter is a useful tool and it is irrational to get annoyed at Cyde if someone uses the tool without consensus. JoshuaZ 22:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I started to get the picture when I saw Lulu keep plugging his own (not yet written) tool and make insulting grandiose statements to the effect that Cyde should be learning from him (i.e. "I'm someone whom Cyde might be required to read to get his CS undergrad degree that he's studying for")[85] --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 23:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. signing in agreement with Johnleeemk's statements: User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. kingboyk 03:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Agreeing with Johnleemks statements —-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-04-25 03:51
  16. Also agreeing with Johnleemk's statement. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 06:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Ligulem 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Alphax τεχ 09:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. — Apr. 25, '06 [09:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  20. I'm not overly fond of the tool or that footnote style, so I don't use it. (Pretty simple, eh? -- self-responsibility, what a concept.) What this RFC has to do with Cyde's behaviour is beyond me. Hey, here's an idea: since the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, and since airplanes have been used from Guernica through today to wreak havoc on civilian populations in wartime, and have resulted in horrendous crashes and loss of life in peacetime, perhaps the Wright brothers should be sued. Yep, that's about how ridiculous this RFC is. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Well said. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. CWC(talk) 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. here here ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Rory096 08:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. -Colin Kimbrell 03:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. KimvdLinde 05:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective by MONGO

[edit]

While Evilphoenix may have decided that he was going to wikibreak and not attend to this matter...all that was added to the Rfc by Evilphoenix were diffs and some commentary. I see nothing wrong with moving this outside userspace since a number of other editors also have complaints and Evilphoenix is (was?) only one of them...as clearly shown in links above. My perception of the "problem" is the lack of grasp the programmers have when discussing this matter with someone who is merely an editor such as myself. I ahve clearly stated that I am not convinced that cite.php is "better" over ref|note becuase I find it takes up too much space in the editing window. When I first started with Wikipedia about 15,000 years (edits) ago...I was clueless as to how to edit an article. I routinely see newbie editors that make simple mistakes and mess up formatting...I can't understand why we need to make the basic editing area more complex by incorporating the reference. I recognize that in ref|note, the risk is high that footnotes get out of place if someone removes a note link and or moves sections around. As far as Harvard style, I can see no reason that cite.php is currently better for the same reasons...namely that the editing window is full of reference, but primarily because the references are no longer alphabetical.--MONGO 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I agree- there is too much fooling around with ref styles going on - this is very bad and must stop. Merecat 04:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brief statement by freakofnurture

[edit]
  • The <ref> tags are easier to use and maintain, and have been used by editors who previously could not have been bothered to cite their contributions to articles, due to the learning curve involved with the {{ref}} method.
  • {{ref}} is a high-risk template, a drain on server resources, and an attractive target for vandals.
  • Templates should be deprecated when a built-in software extension serves exactly the same purpose. Articles should adapt themselves in this fashion, whether the original author likes it or not.
  • The following is an official policy on the English Wikipedia:
You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" prose, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added, and then removed]

— Apr. 25, '06 [09:28] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. jaco♫plane 09:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Asterion talk to me 09:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongly agree, Avar's Cite extension is far and away better than the old {{ref}} system. If there's some problem with it, why not propose a feature/fix/whatever at m:Cite/Cite.php (or ask Avar directly)? —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongly agree. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Ligulem 15:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Specially for long ages, ref/note gets a pain to maintain. It was good when ref didn't exist, now it does, should be used. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Where possible, we really should move away from the broad use of templates that impact server response. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Although also note that a consensus about which system to use in general has already been achieved, so this is slightly redundant. JoshuaZ 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree. Martin 21:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. indeed ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -Colin Kimbrell 03:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. KimvdLinde 05:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

[edit]

So, protect the ref|note templates...why is that a big deal? The bolding of boilerplate "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" is ironic...it goes both ways. An examination of the Wikipedia:Footnote3 page clearly demonstrates that numerous styles are accepted as does the guideline page on citing sources. Until myself and a few others discovered the alterations to the Wikipedia:Footnotes page and made adjustments there, it indicated that m:cite.php was essentially the only way to go with footnoting. Yes, you can't stop people from editing "your" prose or "your" citation style. Exactly.--MONGO 10:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mongo - there is too much fooling around with ref styles going on - this is very bad and must stop. Merecat 04:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As high-risk templates, {{ref}} and {{note}} already are protected, so we're only concerned about the vandals with admin privileges. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to go a bit further with that implication? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jim62Sch

[edit]

In reading the evidence re the JK Rowling article, I was totally unimpressed by the evidence against Cyde. The evidence against Evilphoenix, however, I found to be rather compelling. To wit:

  • re User:Cyde commenting in favor of cite.php[86] - Utterly unconscionable: Cyde pointed out the truth. How dare he? Who does he think he is? Or, to put it more seriously for those who might be offended by levitty or sarcasm: as far as I know, opinions are still allowed on Wikipedia, no? Cyde's opinion, which happens to be right in this case, is that cite.php resolves the issue of dead-links. As previously stated, I do not like the format of cite.php, but it most certainly does resolve the dealinks issue. How anyone can take offence at pointing out such a fact is beyond my ken.
  • re User:Cyde removes commenting on a commented out Citation [87] -- and the substantive effect of this was what? Nothing that I can see. The cite was still commented out. Odds are, cite.php does not work properly with a double comment. In fact, given that Cyde noted "Rm. text messing us up" in his edit summary, a logical person wouldf assume that to be the case.
  • re Re: Cyde comments on Talk:J. K. Rowling[88] -- Here Cyde goes beyond proper procedure which only requires an edit summary and actually informs everyone of what he has done. Is this a Wiki-sin, WP:NOTCOMMENTONTALKPAGETOO?
  • re (skipping just a bit) Re: Cyde accuses Evilphoenix of violating the WP:OWN policy and stating: "..you are doing more harm than good"[89] -- Given the next two diffs, I just cannot imagine why Cyde would make such a horrid accusation.
    • To the meat then:
  • re this diff [90] which is dirtectly above Cyde's notation on the talk page that he'd changed the formatting, we find this sentence: "However, as the person who wrote the citations, and maintains them, I prefer alphabetical. That's all there is to it really. Sorry, Evilphoenix, that is as clear violation of WP:OWN, and if it is a behaviour that is consistant in your editing history could merit it's owen RfC.
  • re Re: Evilphoenix responds to Cyde's comment, rather frustradedly asking for the article not to be converted to cite.php again, pointing to the conversation[91], in which Evilphoenix notes TWO things of importance.
    • First, partially quoting something he's written earlier, Evilphoenix notes: "Please do not convert this article to cite.php. I do not want this article in that format while I'm maintaining it, and I am maintaining it." Once again we have a violation of WP:OWN
    • Second, and of greater seriousness, is this blatant threat by Evilphoenix, I'm so close to getting some serious Rogue Admin points by blocking the everloving goodness out of the next person who comes along here and converts this article. This statement speaks for itself, and like merits at least a mention on WP:AN/I and possibly an RfC.

In other words folks, seems to me that it isn't Cyde's behaviour that needs to be commented upon. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Johnleemk | Talk 04:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Although I can understand Evilphoenix's feelings, and he does have some correct points, overall, this summary is accurate.[reply]
  2. Indeed. Sandstein 18:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This and subsequent behavior surrounding the RfC are seriously questionable. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 01:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEWilco unable to participate

[edit]

I am aware at this moment of this RfC but am not allowed to participate above. (SEWilco 04:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Outside view by Elkman

[edit]

I don't want to take sides here (or Cydes, either), but I wanted to mention a couple things:

  • Using references in articles is A Good Thing. There's no question or dispute about that. An article with the proper references is much more encyclopedic than something that's unreferenced (or someone's personal opinion, or outright plagiarism).
  • Using a certain style of references (the {{ref}}/{{note}} system versus Cite.php) is not really the focus of this RfC.
  • Harmonious editing on Wikipedia is important. In fact, it's fundamental to the way we do things here. If people regularly argue and disagree about writing articles, they'll get frustrated and leave the project. Or, even worse, they might turn into vandals. (I don't think that happens very often, and I'm certainly not saying that anyone here will turn into a vandal.)

That said, I see a few things that are making disharmonious:

  1. If one, two, or a few people are actively editing an article, it throws things into disarray when someone comes in and makes wholesale changes in format (like using the reference converter, splitting articles into subarticles, rearranging a lot of text, and so on). This doesn't imply that anyone owns an article (per WP:OWN), but a little collaboration and discussion goes a long way. That discussion apparently broke down in the articles in question, Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and J. K. Rowling. Actually, it didn't just break down -- it turned into long, drawn-out arguments in the case of J. K. Rowling.
  2. I find it troublesome that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters took a draft that was on Evilphoenix's page and submitted it as an RfC here, even though Evilphoenix was on vacation. It may not be outrageous conduct, but it's cause for concern because there was a chance of more discussion and some progress being made before Lulu submitted this as an RfC.
  3. Lulu's user page says, "This editor suffers fools poorly, and just is not able to assume good faith when it is self-evidently absent." The problem with that is that there's always a potential for disagreements on Wikipedia. Labeling someone as a fool simply isn't the way to resolve a conflict -- it just makes people reinforce their positions and get more stubborn.

Here's an example where discussion helps out: Someone recently edited Minnesota State Highway 3 to indicate that it ends in downtown St. Paul, Minnesota. Even though the references I had said that it ends at Minnesota State Highway 110 in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, I didn't immediately revert the article and complain to the editor -- I mentioned why I believed my version was correct, and confirmed that the next time I was in the neighborhood. He did some checking of his own and found that I was correct. So, the dispute was resolved harmoniously without anyone reverting anything.

--Elkman - (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. It seems to me that the whole point of discussing the changes first has been lost in this RfC. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 07:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No kidding! For whatever reason this was foolishly filed as a user conduct RfC rather than a referencing styles RfC. --Cyde Weys 07:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there's that. Then there's the specious nature of the charges, and the poor behaviour of the, er, "plantiff" (for lack of a better word). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 01:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Phr

[edit]
  • I state no opinion about user conduct issues in this rfc.
  • I myself like using <ref> style footnotes when editing; keeping the footnote text next to what it's attached to in the source text is a good thing.
  • One of the main objections to <ref> for academic articles is that they're shown in order of appearance instead of alphabetized. This can be viewed as a cite.php software deficiency.
  • The right solution is to fix cite.php to allow supplying a sort key something like the way category tags do, for example,
<ref sort="Snape, Severus">Severus Snape, Pixels And Potions, p. 23</ref>.

Cite.php would sort on the sort key.

  • Another annoying thing about <ref> is not seeing the footnote when you do a section preview. But there is an open Bugzilla request about that [92] so it will hopefully get taken care of by and by.
  • If the suggestion of a sort key sounds good to other participants, I'll enter a bugzilla request and maybe take a crack at contributing a code patch.

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde&oldid=1142507589"