User:Twsx/Commas vs. Linebreaks

Because I found myself having to state my arguments concerning the matter over and over again, I decided to put up my argumentation here, so I can re-use them. Please note: I am not a very active editor on wikipedia. I might get policies wrong sometimes. If you find me doing so, on this argumentation page in particular, please tell me so I can improve.

General, about the matter

 * There is no consensus.
 * Therefore, every accusation of breaking WP:CON is irrelevant.
 * Since there is no consensus, there is no line to be drawn about "what is right".
 * As well, as there is no consensus, WP:NPOV is not violated.
 * Community discussion of the matter seems to have in the past resulted in noticeable favour of comma separated lists.
 * While the number of people in favour of line breaks seems to be significantly higher, there is a lack of valid arguments promoting them, and consensus is not reached through a vote.
 * This again shows; The discussion is far from consensus (if there ever can be one), so the result of all the previous discussions is irrelevant, for both sides.
 * Accusing people of breaking policies which they have not broken, especially if the accusant is doing the very same, is very rude.
 * The fact that some pages have had line break separated lists most of the time in the past, has zero relevance.
 * None of this has anything to do with vandalism, even if some editors (of both sides) want to stamp it as such.
 * Bottom line:  Both "parties" are in the very same position.
 * Accusing someone who promoted the other version of breaking policy is mediocre, as the agrument can be returned 1:1.
 * Both parties are not violating any policies and "playing" in a gray area.
 * WP:3RR applies to everyone involved. The difference is, how aggressive someone behaves with the reverting.

Personal

 * Yes, I am in the same position as the other editors are.
 * Yet, I don't just revert stuff, I give it time.
 * Neither do I lower myself to incivility or personal attacks.
 * No, I am NOT the only person that changes lists to commas, as some editors (one in particular) want to make other people believe. Nor does it really matter.
 * The fact that I do not return the favour of placing warning tags on the talk page of editors who place tags on mine, should not be counted as "me being warned, the other editor not being warned".
 * I am absolutely willing to accept line breaks, as well per-article or as a general guideline, if a community consensus or administrative body decides it.

Why commas?
Disccussions (such as this one ) have ended up in wrecks in the past. Extracting the information, there is a larger number of people endorsing line breaks, but an immensive larger collection of valid arguments promoting commas. Also, the base of editors promoting commas seems to contain more established editors and administrators. Here is a summary of what the discussion has brought up.

Info: If you think an argument is missing or misjudged, please let me know on my talk page and we'll discuss it.

Whereas:
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Valid argument
 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] Trivial / Of lesser importance / POV / Could be used as argument for the other version too
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] Irrelevant argument

''Note: Some of the following arguments have been copied & pasted 1:1 from a discussion. (Marked with "(Q)")''

Arguments for commas

 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Uses less space when there are multiple genres. - Infoboxes are too large already anyhow.
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Doesn't encourage incorrect capitalization. (Q) - For instance "Melodic Death Metal" instead of correct "melodic death metal".
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Is already a written standard for genre lists on album infoboxes and labels on musical artist infoboxes. - Aim for generality & consistency.
 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] Easier to write (no markup needed). - Editors, mostly unexperienced ones, might not know what  means.
 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] Using a visible delimiter character (like a comma) makes the delimiter more clear. (Q)

Arguments for line breaks

 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] With refs still being used in infoboxes, they look slightly more tidy when coming at the end of a line. - Eventhough refs may not be used in infoboxes forever, this is true.
 * [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|15px]] "Prettier" / "Easier on the eye". - In the eye of the viewer, can be used to promote commas too.
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] More "informative". - Trivial.
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] Commas create line breaks in the middle of a genre name. - That is no disadvantage.
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] Line breaks have always been used before. - Not globally true and irrelevant anyway.
 * [[Image:Symbol unrelated.svg|15px]] Commas would decrease the height of infoboxes only very little (1-2cm/2-3cm (Q)). - 1-3cm is significant.

User:Navnløs
Navnløs (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · checkuser)

While I in no way want to devalue this users opinion, I do want administrators and other people who are acquiring a view into the topic take a number of things into consideration. I feel this is necessary, as Navnløs has repeatedly accused me of things, brought those things to the administrators' noticeboard, and is likely to keep doing so in the future.

The conflict with this user has, until now, mostly, been limited to a small number of articles, namely Amon Amarth, Dissection (band) and Bathory (band), some of a few articles which he seems to be very protective about.


 * The user has accused me of breaking policy multiple times, which I think is wrong because of the reasoning given above. Also, it is very improper and rude, considering he is in the same place and usually reverts pages to the version of his liking at the same time. He often does this by placing vandalism warning templates on user pages, eventhough they are sometimes very out of place.


 * The user has been noticeably uncivil in the near past. Eventhough there is more to be found on other talk pages and a number of edit summaries, I will only mention examples I was involved in. Apart from the diff(s), I think this paragraph on my talk page says a lot. He is not in violation of WP:ATTACK, but he is certainly very offensive.
 * And some funky edit summaries.


 * The user seems to have a lack of understanding (and to my view intended ignorance) of policy. There is no crime in not being aware of policy parameters, but it does not fit together with making accusations in an exaggerated manner like this. - (removes other user's comment which opposes his opinion on an article talk page)


 * The user seems to mistake wikipedia for a chatting and discussion community or social networking site. This, and many other things about the intentions and editorial mind of the user, is given by his user page (now updated). Also, some other diffs with strange arguments that I think are a good display of the user's idea of what's what.


 * It seems to me, the user is on a POV pushing crusade to enforce his opinion on wikipedia articles. He gave me that impression already before the comma vs. line break issue, when he tried to add a biased, derogatory, original research paragraph to the nu metal page, a musical style which he seems to hate, followed by talk page discussions such as these:


 * The user has been blocked six times for the things he is accusing other people of doing.
 * Recently, it was confirmed that the user used a sockpuppet to evade his bans. He also used this sockpuppet to double-vote on an AFD for an article which he created.
 * In February 2008, both Navnløs and me were banned from editing Amon Amarth for 30 days. The ban was justified, and it was the first preventative administrative action brought upon me.


 * The user has taken "me as a vandal" to AN/I more than once. In all cases the issue hase been dismissed, obviously.
 * He also started a COI/N, which was not only dismissed, but also accompanied with an argument promoting comma separated lists and discouraging his incivil editing behavior.

As I just noticed, Navnløs decided to reply to this "accusation page" (as he apparently understands it) with an own user page, which you can find here. His argumentation is, unfortunately for me, absolutely devastating.

Conclusion
While I, as mentioned before, can be wrong on policy, and obviously can have no definite telling about whether I am biased or not, I am in believe, that while the whole thing is a child's play I participate in instead of staying out, I am not the intruder here. Make an opinion for yourself. What I have written here might help you doing so, and Navnløs is sure to have information on the matter too, so you can hear both sides. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 11:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)