Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cyde

Topic of this RfC
I'd encourage editors to take a closer look at the RfC. It is not intended to resolve issues, whether technical or usability ones, of ideal referencing formats. I think the m:Cite.php is a valuable technology (not perfect; it has both advantages and disadvantages), and I think the existence of refconverter is helpful for implementing that reference system where article editors desire it. The RfC concerns the user conduct by Cyde is essentially two areas:


 * 1) Edit warring over reference formats against the existing consensus of article editors
 * 2) Deleting caveats about the use of refconverter and/or aggressively misstating that non-Cite.php references are "deprecated" (including, but not only, in pages associated with refconverter); this gives some editors the impression that refconverter should be applied automatically to articles, without consulting other article editors.

Well... I guess I also get a little annoyed at Cyde's persistent belligerence and personal attacks. But I have fairly thick skin, and the issue of improper use of refconverter is more pressing that a few nasty things said about me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters: What would you like the outcome of this RfC to be? Can you propose some solutions and agree on a compromise? Thanks a lot, --Asterion talk to me 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Response:
 * The best possible outcome, to my mind, would be:
 * Cyde would either add, or allow other editors to add, caveats to the Wikipedia project page for Ref converter that indicate that the semi-bot should not be used to peform major edits on articles without first soliciting consensus of article editors.
 * Cyde disables the "modify a random article" functionality of Ref converter, hence requiring editors to more consciously and deliberately identify articles in which the feel consensus (or at least non-objection) exists to conversion of reference style. This change would encourage (not assure, of course, but encourage) editors to apply the semi-bot to articles about whose history and reference strategy they had a specific awareness.


 * Somewhat desirable would be to also disable the "update now" function; requiring editors to cut-and-paste the text between a "proposed revision" and the actual article would further emphasize the point that the tool is an aid to editors performing an action that is independently desirable. However, the effort involved in a cut-and-past is very, very small compared to that involved in manually modifying references, so the tool would still be of great assistance (when used where appropraite).


 * Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, I agree with removing the random article modification, as it is far too controversial. However, calling it semi-vandalism is a little bit too much. Regards, --Asterion talk to me 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So, in order to achieve your goals you start a user conduct RfC? Uh, no.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree with Jim62sch here - you aren't happy with the policies and guidelines, you want them modified, you start an Rfc? This is close to gaming the system, and making a valuable contributor the goat for your desired changes. If you want the project page changed, the place to do that is on the project talk page, not by attacking someone who has written an extremely valuable tool because you aren't happy with some of the details. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Response
I am one of the users explicitly named in the this RFC. As for the statement that "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", when I converted the J.K. Rowling article to the cite.php format I had no knowledge of prior conversions or agreements to not use the cite.php format. I also checked the talk page for discussion about the format before did made any conversions, which was comprised of complaints that the alphabetical format was difficult to follow. As stated about, I commented on Evilphoenix about the format, where he/she informed me of a preference for the ref/note format (which I did feel conflicted with WP:OWN). I didn't care to make an issue of it, and I have converted the article citation format only once. As for the conflict between the cite.php and ref/note format, as stated above neither is "better" per se. With the current Rowling article, footnote numbers do not correspond to the note at the bottom of the page, and clicking on the note does not always bring the browser to the correct footnotes, such as with higher resolution browsers like my own (1280 by 1024).--Fallout boy 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to say that when I converted J.K. Rowling, I did not realize that there was a comment on the talk page concerning conversion to cite.php. I assumed that cite.php is the new way to cite things and I thought it would be beneficial for everyone if I converted it. Like Fallout boy, I had no knowledge of prior discussions discouraging the usage of cite.php. I apologize for any damage I have caused. Nooby_god | Talk 21:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nooby_god's comment is exactly the point of this RfC. By actively deleting any accurate description of the status of WP guidelines for referencing off of the project page for Ref converter (and by, in fact, making false statements), Cyde encourages improper use of the tool.  All it would take to solve this is a minor modification of the project page, and perhaps some minor warnings in the tool itself.  A warning doesn't 100% guarantee that the advice is followed, but a refusal to allow one pretty much insists on such innocent misunderstandings by well-meaning editors like Nooby_god.  If the tool simply encouraged users to check whether consensus exists on a given article, there would be zero remaining issue... this is exactly what Cyde is stomping his feet against allowing. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Lulu, you are leading the witness. --Asterion talk to me[[Image:Andalucialibre_flag.jpg|25px]] 21:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
Lulu is now saying that he wrote barely a word of the "Statement of the dispute" section. Since Evilphoenix is the one who did write it and he blanked it shortly thereafter saying it wasn't yet necessary to take this to RfC (which was reverted by Lulu), I hereby move that the first "Statement of the dispute" section be removed because it represents no one. The one who did write it no longer believes it represents his views and he deleted the section on his own. -- Cyde Weys 23:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OWN. Whether Evilphoenix decides to later certify this RfC or not and/or whether or not s/he decides to write a statement, her/his words are released as GFDL.  Please stop playing these annoying games, and just try to resolve the problems, Cyde.  Why won't you just calm down and address the actual issues that exist?! It's fine with me if you want to create an article or user page on "Why I hate Lulu", just as long as you simultaneously change refconverter's project page to urge usage according to WP policy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you stand behind Evilphoenix's words which you caused to be posted in the RfC after EP declined to do so, whether or not you "wrote" them is a distinction without a difference. Thatcher131 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement of the dispute is certified by whatever editors choose to certify it. I am indeed one of the certifiers, as is MONGO.  Other editors may or may not decide to sign as certifiers as well.  It sure is strange how such a point is made about WP:OWN when it comes to violating consensus about reference styles, yet the policy is completely out the window apparently when it comes to anything Cyde wishes to control.


 * Can we just move beyond this silly rule mongering though, and simply do something to address the underlying issue of misuse of refconverter as an end-run around consensus?! Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For some reason the term "personal vendetta" keeps running through my mind. In fact, one might make an argument that this RfC is nought but a variation on WP:POINT.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Cyde
By the way, the user3 template works fine if you replace the spaces in the user name with underscores.
 * See? Thatcher131 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that puts underscores in the link text, which is ugly. -- Cyde Weys 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, aesthetics aren't everything....usually...in this case though, aesthetics win. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Who?

 * "(Some) Other users of Ref converter"

Notify and name the users or they might not participate, or be punished without knowing what they are participating in. (SEWilco 06:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC))

RfC doesn't actually have any "teeth" to it, so it can't mete out punishments. -- Cyde Weys 06:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I 100% agree with Cyde on this point. No punishment will, can, or should result from this (or any) RfC.  The most we can hope to obtain is some agreement on how to behave going forward.  I think it would be counter-productive to try to name specific users of Ref converter; I'm not trying to argue about every edit that anyone performed.  Moreover, I have no way of determining who is a user of Ref converter (perhaps Cyd does via his own website logs).  If the tool itself carried clear recommendations to use the tool with restraint and caution, and generally respecting consensus on articles, that would be everything that can be done... yes, sure, some editor in the future might still misuse it.  But if so, it might well be someone who has never used it thus far.  Only Cyde controls the tool's operation, and the project page (since he treats the project page as his personal property, rolling back any wording changes that contain caveats). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do have logs. And no, they're never going to be made publicly available, as that would be a privacy infringement upon my users.  I have let a few select Wikipedia admins see them for analysis and they all say Ref converter is doing a terrific job.  -- Cyde Weys  08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If those users are not notified, they can not participate and thus will not be part of the "we" who create "agreement on how to behave". The "Other users" part of the RfC is too ambiguous.  Name them.  (SEWilco 03:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Agreed -- name them. Who are they?  What are their egregious sins against mankind?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

From a non-administrator
Is this RfC limited to partcipation by administrators only? If so, please excuse me. I have only been a Wikipedian for a few months. I really have no opinion, one way or the other, regarding any alleged mis-conduct by anyone. I just want to make one point.

Fairly recently, Cyde used his tool to change the references on Ammonia to the Cite.php method. I posted to Cyde's Talk page and asked why the changes were made and also asked if we had the option of using and  instead of Cite.php. I quote part of his Talk page reply here: "... the reason why is because Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format. So no, there's really no choice." Being a newcomer, I took him at his word that Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format.

I very much dislike the Cite.php method because it clutters up the Edit page of an article to the point that the page becomes almost incomprehensible where there are a number of closely adjacent references. Having now read all of the discussion at Footnotes, I see there really hasn't been a concensus that " ... Cite.php is the only non-deprecated references format." The point I want to make here is that until such a concensus is reached, the use of Cyde's tool by anyone should be prohibited. - mbeychok 06:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise. "Maybe some of the other references formats aren't entirely deprecated therefore conversion to the newest format should be prohibited." I don't get it. And Ammonia is better with the new references than the old ones, by the way. -- Cyde Weys 06:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

And no, participation in RfCs isn't restricted to administrators only. -- Cyde Weys 06:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbeychok: no RfC is limited to administrator participation. We would very much welcome a statement of the relevant issues you have encountered and/or any signature of agreement with any of the existing statements.  FWIW, I personally actually do not support prohibition of use of Ref converter: I think it's a useful tool that has sometimes been misused.  Likewise, I'm very fond of the GPL browser Firefox, even though many vandals have used it to make destructive edits.  It sounds like Cyde's behavior on Ammonia was way out of order, but that's a question of user conduct, not of the tool itself. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is interesting: "It sounds like Cyde's behavior on Ammonia was way out of order, but that's a question of user conduct, not of the tool itself"...uh, have you looked at your own RfC? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  01:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to User:Francis Schonken
"Don't make software that, without warning to the user of the software, can short-circuit ArbCom rulings."

I presume you are referring to this ruling. I think that there is a distinct difference between the two cases. The ruling was directed specifically against SEWilco. I see no remedies related to his bot, so I do not see how using Cyde's tool short-circuits ArbCom rulings. Indeed, the findings of fact specifically stated that the bot remained in use at the time of the ruling, so apparently the ArbCom had no problem with this. jaco ♫ plane 09:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * formal answer: indeed the ArbCom case I was referring to was Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. Formally Retreat of glaciers since 1850 falls in "Climate change" type of articles, so is covered by that ArbCom case, where the arbitrators passed 6-0: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for no other purpose than to convert them to their preferred style."
 * less formal answer: we're not going to be childish here (I hope). It was pure coincidence that one of the two articles cited as example in this RfC is indeed "formally" covered by that ArbCom... The importance of the ArbCom case to the present issue is IMHO the more generic affirmation of what is generally in style-related guidelines: "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas" [...] "Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style" --Francis Schonken 09:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actions were taken which were aimed at the bot, one of which was the blocking of User:RefBot based upon Admin imagination rather than fact. One of the many oddities was a general footnote bot warning in WP:FN which involves some scripts which were not involved in the RfAr.   (SEWilco 03:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

Use, tool or creator?
I don't think the issue here is the existence of the software, but rather the manner in which the software is being used. In particular, I think the issue concerns:
 * 1) articles that have gone through extensive editing by many previous editors to reach their current state, which includes citation forms other than the cite php style;
 * 2) editors that in many cases make their first, or first significant, edit to the page as a large-scale conversion of the citations on the existing page using the software without any prior discussion on the talk page;
 * 3) reversion of the conversion by other editors, and in the cases here, accompanied by discussion of why the original citation style was preferred;
 * 4) repeated reconversion of the citation styles, with an arguably belligerent, uncooperative attitude.

That amounts to an issue regarding the behaviour of the editors employing the software, not an issue with the software itself. The issue would be no different if the users were performing the conversion by hand, except that there is an added issue that the software lacks adequate documentation to promote proper use and contains features that promote improper use. At it's core, it is an issue of conduct, not technology. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that sums things up pretty well. I applaud those that can create the software to do the things that need to be done around wiki...this is a talent I simply do not have. But looking over the comments here, at the footnotes page and elsewhere, I think there are numerous voices that say three things...1. use cite.php becuase it is better ( and I don't exactly disagree with this view)...2. Use ref|note because it keeps the article text from being cluttered up as viewed in the editing window...3. Use harvard style for scientific articles or if you want the references to be alphabetical. Hopefully, regardless of the "majority" that think Cite.php is the end all be all, it would still be proper, as it always is, to discuss the incorporation of this newer style first...especially if they encounter the Harvard style.--MONGO 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And all that, while essentially true, adds up to a user conduct RfC on Cyde, how? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, for his conduct. Didn't you read it? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did (imagine that) ... I saw nothing of any real value to the pursuit of this RfC, certainly not against Cyde.
 * Did you read what I was replying to? Nothing there indicates any "wrong-doing" on Cyde's part.  That users misuse it isn't Cyde's problem.  And even if one felt that Cyde was promoting the program improperly (which seems to be the implication, one I think is bogus), and requesting users to use it because it is "better", recall Nuremburg: the defense "I vas only followink orders" doesn't cut any ice.  So, it is the individual who is responsible for his use of the program, not the creator.  Pretty simple really.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, the user of the software was Cyde—this RfC isn't about the fact that he wrote the software, it has to do with his use of it. In the case of the Retreat of glaciers since 1850 article it was only Cyde repreatedly converting the references from the form agreed to through discussion and consensus, in the J.K. Rowling article it was several users, including Cyde.  So, that's why I was wondering if you read the RfC, or if you are simply responding to people's comments about the RfC?  Oh, and since I wrote the comment at the start of this thread, yeah, I read wrote what you are responding to (and by extension, MONGO's agreement with what I wrote). —Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm missing the part where Jacoplane, Fallout boy, Sandstein and Nooby god, all of whom converted J. K. Rowling prior to Cyde's arrival on the scene, are somehow unnamed, yet Cyde is. You state it is his behavior. I assert it is his creation of the tool which is resented. There is a disagreement on Retreat of glaciers, true. Looks to me like neither side was being particularly diligent about trying to work with others. Neither side did anything on that article which merits a user Rfc, either. What, precisely, did Cyde do that you consider worthy of an Rfc? He disagreed with other editors, and attempted to argue his position persuasively? File an Rfc on every editor here who has made more than 10 edits, then. If there is something else, please enlighten me. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(dedent) Well, the RfC starts with "Certain editors...", but it is Cyde's behavior that stands out, so I guess he got named. One of the people that wrote the RfC can respond as to the precise reasoning behind how the RfC was formed (perhaps there is a better way to create an RfC directed at the behaviour of a group of editors?), but clearly if you are to single out one user's poor behavior, it would be Cyde's since he alone was involved in the revert war on the glacier article while it was a group effort on the Rowling article.

However, the RfC is not intended to be punative, but rather prescriptive in trying to resolve the issue of edit warring on multiple articles over the style of references, which is in clear violation of the WP policies, ruling and guidelines listed in the RfC. As I laid out above, I think it is fairly clear who fired the first shot by failing to discuss these changes and edit articles purely for the purpose of imposing their desired style of referencing, and then continuing to reconvert despite multiple requests to stop. Trying to turn this into an issue about the creation of the software is to clearly ignore the multiple statements by people supporting this RfC that the issue is not the existence of the software, but the behaviour of the users, particularly Cyde. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a user conduct RfC involving me. I never even came close to violating any Wikipedia policies.  I have one revert on Retreat of glaciers since 1850 (which I apologized for) and nothing else.  This is so far from meriting a user conduct RfC it's not even funny.  That is why the vast majority of people on the RfC are siding with me over Lulu.  -- Cyde Weys  17:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the more relevant WP guideline is from Citing sources:
 * An article's previous content contributors usually know the established practice - if possible, follow their lead if the article already has references.
 * If contributors differ as to the appropriate style of citation, they should defer to the article's main content contributors in deciding the most suitable format for the presentation of references. If no agreement can be reached, the citation style used should be that of the first major contributor.
 * This particular guideline is where I see the pattern of poor behavior and the justification for this RfC. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Peculiar perspective. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The general misunderstanding
Unfotunately, most people are "siding" with Cyde because they are reading this incorrectly as a poll on "Is m:Cite.php a good technology?" If that were the question, I'd "side" with Cyde too. Heck, if it were a poll on "Should we be grateful to Cyde for creation of a useful tool?" I'd vote yes too. Almost all the comments speak to these other, only barely related, questions.

Sadly, that misunderstanding is diffusing the useful purpose I hope to obtain: it ain't "punishment" of anyone, by any stretch, it's just for the refconverter tool to carry more appropriate warnings about seeking consensus about major changes to articles... and for the technological parts to encourage proper use rather than improper: i.e. remove the "change a random article" and properly implement a "blacklist" function. Well, obviously also for Cyde himself to refrain from robot-assisted edit warring, but that seems mostly to have died down after Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not "siding" with Cyde (sorry Cyde, that is inaccurate!) There is no side, because there is no reason for a User Rfc. End of story.
 * If your goal involves the tool, then you are in the wrong venue also, and so we agree, there is no justification or reason for this Rfc. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let's stipulate for this thread that I followed the wrong venue. Do you have any suggestion about how I might cause some minor changes to the tool project page and tool behavior to happen, so as to encourage appropriate over inapppropriate use of the tool? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So stipulated for this thread only; understood.
 * Firstly, there is the question of "appropriate" vs. "inappropriate". Is there consensus on appropriate use of the tool, or no? Secondly, is any inappropriate use already covered under inappropriate editing rules? Because I can change refs without Cyde's tools, it is just a major pain. If appropriate editing is already covered under some other rule (by which I mean policy or guideline, inclusive) then nothing needs to be done. Edit warring is edit warring, whether a tool is used or not. Consensus is consensus, whether a tool is used or not. WP:OWN is the same, and WP:POINT is the same, etc.
 * If, on the other hand, there is a specific issue with the tool itself, the place to bring that up is the project talk page. For wider community input and participation, there is the Village Pump, Policy or Technical, whichever is appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lulu's edits to User talk:Cyde
I noticed an apparent contradiction in accounts of certain Lulu's edits to Cyde's talk page:
 * Statements by User:Cyde (in §2.1 Description):
 * This [edit of April 23, 20:39 UTC] is the first time Lulu spoke to me in regards to this latest round of the conflict.
 * This [edit of April 23, 21:05 UTC] is the second time Lulu spoke to me in this conflict.


 * Statement by User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters in §3.1 Ancillary comments by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
 * 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 was curious enough to go and find all edits to User talk:Cyde by Lulu this month. The following list shows the dates and times in UTC, plus the edit summaries. The two edits mentioned by Cyde are marked by text in italics.
 * 18th April 2006:
 * 16:19 (Don't ignore consensus on references)
 * 16:53 (Actual guideline!)
 * 17:05 (improving m:cite.php)
 * 17:08 (nowiki, fmt)
 * 17:10 (more nowiki)
 * 17:31 (tweaks)


 * 23rd:
 * 20:39 (User conduct RfC) ...the first time Lulu spoke to me in regards to this latest round of the conflict
 * 21:05 (Abusive (mis)use of refconverter) ...the second time Lulu spoke to me in this conflict


 * 24th:
 * 02:10 (Bad, bad faith)
 * 02:13 (abuse and attack)

Make of this what you will. (Close examination advised.)

Cheers, CWC (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's unreasonable for me to consider Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and J. K. Rowling as two separate incidents, considering they occurred on separate articles and separated by about a timespan of a week in which no further communication took place. -- Cyde Weys  16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It is the pattern of behavior that this RfC is directed at, and both incidents are named and detailed in the RfC that you were responding to, so I don't think it's unreasonable for people reading your response to the RfC to consider your comments in light of the entire issue encompassed by the RfC. Viewed in the context of this RfC, your characterization of Lulu's statements in your response to the RfC is somewhat disingenuous, at best. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 16:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. I, personally, consider them accurate.  A week is a helluva long time in the Wiki world.  I can't even begin to tell you how many other things I've been involved in in the past week (my talk page may give some indication of that, but the majority of the stuff is on IRC).  And I think if you look at the relative numbers of endorsements of various statements on the RfC you'll see that many, many more people agree with me than with Lulu (strictly in regards to user conduct, we're not talking about references).  -- Cyde Weys  16:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, to your credit, you did correct your misstatements regarding Lulu. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * (Previous comments removed because false — I had not noticed the corrections User:Doug Bell just mentioned. I apologise for messing up here.) CWC (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To simplify analysis for others, the original statements were:
 * This is the first time Lulu has ever spoken directly to me
 * was corrected by Cyde to
 * This is the first time Lulu spoke to me in regards to this latest round of the conflict
 * and
 * This is the second time Lulu has ever spoken directly to me.
 * was corrected by Cyde to
 * ...the second time Lulu spoke to me in this conflict
 * —Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lulu's latest very questionable edits to the RfC
Evilphoenix briefly returned from his Wikibreak to cross out his statement of the dispute because he had not been intending to file this RFC yet, and Lulu went ahead with it anyway without his permission:


 * 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.

And then Lulu comes along and reverts Evilphoenix's edit, even though it was Evilphoenix who originally wrote that initial statement of the dispute and he has every right to cross it out as well as be very offended that it was used against his wishes and without his permission.

Then I revert Lulu's reversion saying he doesn't have a right to take total ownership of the RFC like that against the wishes of the one who initially wrote it.

Then Lulu reverts me and posts some irrelevant Wikilawyering on my talk page saying, ''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. Guess what Lulu, I was only editing it because you improperly reverted an edit by a user who initially wrote this RFC and who has every right'' to edit it!

Is anyone else disturbed by Lulu's behavior in this matter? This is an RfC, a request for comment from the community (not just Lulu). It was originally written by Evilphoenix, yet Lulu is taking advantage of the fact that Evilphoenix is away on vacation and attempting to take total ownership of the RfC by reverting any edits Evilphoenix makes to properly reflect the fact that he, the original author of the RfC, did not want to go through with it at this time. -- Cyde Weys 20:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement was certified by several editors who are not Evilphoenix (and not currently by Evilphoenix). It is simply procedurally inappropriate for the subject of a user conduct RfC to change the statement of the dispute to better fit her/his wishes about what it should say.  In any case, although Evilphoenix indeed wrote much of the dispute statement, he did not write all of it... it's a wiki, remember? You don't need "permission" to modify content someone else wrote.  I modified the summary statement slightly; MONGO added quite a bit of history, Doug Bell and Francis Schonken performed some minor wording changes and additions (I might be forgetting others).


 * It happens that Evilphoenix was minorly wrong procedurally to change a statement that he was not certifier of (but simply one contributing author). That was innocent enough, and I notified Evilphoenix on his talk page of the change I made to restore the certified statement.  I, of course, retained Evilphoenix' comment outside the statement of dispute. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A statement of dispute is endorsed by certifiers, it makes no difference whatsoever who might have contributed to writing a statement so certified. Please stop this gamesmanship, and just try to resolve the issue at hand: encouragement of improper reference conversion. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be very pleased if Evilphoenix decides either to certify the RfC or add additional outside comments. The certifiers do "own" the dispute statement though, at least in the sense that respondents or outside commentors are explicitly barred from modifying the statement of dispute.  There's nothing even slightly ambiguous about this. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither Evilphoenix, Lulu, nor anyone else "owns" this RfC. I see no issue with Evilphoenix having started the RfC, nor with Lulu taking it and "making it live" (with his own endorsement and no implication of endorsement by Evilphoenix), nor with Lulu restoring the original, endorsed, statement and moving Evilphoenix's comments to their proper place.  Evilphoenix doesn't own this RfC either, and just because it was started by him/her doesn't prohibit Lulu from initiating it with his own endorsement, nor does it give Evilphoenix every right to modify the statement that has been endorsed. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have brought this up on WP:ANI, because, Doug Bell, as one of only two users who endorsed Lulu's statement, I don't believe you are qualified to comment in an unbiased manner. I'd rather have some uninvolved admins take a look at this and determine if they think Lulu's behavior is appropriate.  -- Cyde Weys  20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Doug Bell here. However, I think we can all move forward and work to put this all behind us. I'm hoping that those that do the cite conversions be patient and not not force feed us this style in question as being the only style that works...when dealing with so many articles and editors, it's best to make these kind of changes slowly. In a couple of weeks I hope to have three different articles that I have worked on in the past few months become FA's and each one will employ a different footnote/citation style...surely if this is the case, then no one style is mandated by the community at large.--MONGO 20:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MONGO, as one of only three users who has certified this dispute, I also do not believe you to be unbiased. Obviously, I myself am not uninvolved in this issue, so I am not taking further actions, and instead have brought it to WP:ANI for review by neutral administrators.  -- Cyde Weys  20:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's a great place to encourage attention. Attempts by the respondent of an RfC to doctor the statement of dispute are a big no-no (but a surprisingly common action, in my experience).  But can we please just stop these idiotic attempts to escalate conflict?! All I hope to acheive (yet again) is to encourage consensus when modifying references.  If you would just add a comment to the project page (and maybe to the tool's own screens) all would be well.  E.g.: "Please seek consensus among article editors when modifying references... and btw. Lulu is the embodiment of evil on this earth".  Heck, you can even leave out the second part; but all I give a damn about is the first part. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lulu's additions to RFC
I have reverted Lulu's addition of my name to the RFC as it is a violation of WP:POINT and WP:AGF and is petty revenge for me removing some info he added to Cyde's Ref converter subpage. Pegasus1138 Talk 23:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What now?
Lulu seems to have gone on WikiBreak with a mesage of "Just can't take the thuggery for now. I'll un-watchlist all the RfC matters, and just hope the "reference vandals" don't do too much harm. Keep an eye on Citation Tool though, I might play with that more." So, what now? I'm happy to discuss and address the issues with Ref converter, but this user conduct RfC against me hardly provides a constructive atmosphere! Can we start over again on my talk page? -- Cyde Weys 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He took a wiki-break? That's like starting WWIII and then hiding in your bunker.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  02:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The other user conduct issue
I've not been pursuing this aspect of Cyde's behaviour yet, because I wanted to give Cyde all the time he needed to give a proper response. This didn't happen IMHO.

It's about Cyde's way of responding to suggestions regarding the software tool he offers to the wikipedia community.

My first remark to Cyde on the issue was enclosed in point #2 of my April 19 posting to his talk page:"Note that converting Harvard references to numbered footnotes is problematic (I mean: usually people don't want that, I'm not talking about software problems). There has been an ArbCom case against such conversions (late 2005), and still yesterday there was some disturbance regarding the Featurerd Article, that was converted and re-converted a few times while it was on Main Page, see the end of the discussion at wikipedia talk:footnotes." 25 April I made a remark on the same page, putting it a bit clearer that this was an issue regarding how the software was presented to the community:"Further, I was a bit disappointed that notwithstanding my second remark above, I didn't see an update to the refconverter software, being more cautious about converting harvard references to numbered footnotes. In that respect, the refconverter violates the WP:FN/WP:FN3 couple of guidelines (or was the software improved without me being aware of it? - in that case maybe advertise a bit more clearly regarding the software, so that all who want to use it are made aware of it). Unless the refconverter software stops violating these guidelines, it should not be used (or the accounts using it should be blocked) IMHO." Then I read the above discussions, which contained some suggestions to keep the software issue on the Ref converter pages in Cyde's user space. Cyde not reacting, I proposed a text pointing to applicable guidelines, - summarizing this addition: it is not because the technical tool can handle this perfectly, that it is all OK w.r.t. existing guidance: users of the tool should best be aware of this IMHO.

I haven't seen Cyde's reaction to this proposal anywhere (the addition to the Ref converter page was reverted by someone else). So, here's the behaviour issue I have with this regarding Cyde: It is clear that Ref converter performs a citation style switch regarding Harvard references to numbered footnotes that doesn't fall under "if the talk page of the article doesn't show discussion you can go ahead". I have nowhere read Cyde's reaction to this problem, although mentioned clear enough and early enough. Seems like Cyde likes to play "deaf and dumb" regarding the problem: he doesn't notify he has understood the issue, he doesn't notify he will do anything about it, he just stays mute. Unacceptable behaviour IMHO. --Francis Schonken 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits to the Ref conv page don't ping me with a "You have new messages" bar. This is the first I have seen of those edits. You probably should've posted this to User talk:Cyde awhile ago instead of here. Also, I have been working on this problem, despite your claims that I have remained deaf and dumb. Please see here and tell me what you think. -- Cyde Weys 17:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't you even read the above? I was talking about two posts on your user talk page (User talk:Cyde) to which you didn't react.
 * Re. you post on EvilPhoenix' page: "I'm thinking of adding some sort of strong warning message to Ref converter if it detects someone trying to convert Harvard references." is the kind of reaction I was looking for. But not on Evilphoenix page (your tiff with Evinphoenix was about numbered footnotes on the JK Rowling page). Was it so difficult to post that idea on your own user talk page, or the ref converter (talk) page, or on this RfC talk page, or on my talk page, when I had been the one asking you (on your user talk page), this question earlier that day: "I was a bit disappointed that notwithstanding my second remark above, I didn't see an update to the refconverter software, being more cautious about converting harvard references to numbered footnotes. [...] or was the software improved without me being aware of it? - in that case maybe advertise a bit more clearly regarding the software, so that all who want to use it are made aware of it".
 * Regarding the content of your suggestion, "I'm thinking of adding some sort of strong warning message to Ref converter if it detects someone trying to convert Harvard references."; did you mean a warning given by the software when it is used? (what I still would prefer); or are you going to stop with the present content of User:Cyde/Ref converter?
 * Regarding the "Random list of articles with ref/note templates" used by Ref converter, I still had this question: does it contain any articles with Harvard references (I mean the ones implemented with templates). If that were the case I'd remove these from that list, as a precaution. The chance that a page with Harvard references can be converted is very small. What do you think? Might I request to give an answer? --Francis Schonken 07:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WikiLinks isn't a "random list". It's simply a cleaned up version of the "What links here" page for ref.  So Harvard references shouldn't even be on that list unless that also, for some reason, use ref.  -- Cyde Weys  18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, WikiLinks is licensed under the GPL and it's pretty clear, both from the code and from the comments, that it has this functionality. I've also had some various accusations made against Ref converter that were simply untrue, and some simple browsing through the source code would have shown that. Anyway, here are the relevant sections from WikiLinks:


 * 1) This program generates a list of Wikipedia pages with  templates in them.

my $response = $ua->get("http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Ref&limit=${moreToGet}&from=0");

So, in the future, you don't need to wait a couple days for me to find the request for clarification and respond to it ... just check the source code. Even if you aren't a Perl programmer, you should be able to understand enough of what's going on (especially because of the commenting). -- Cyde Weys 18:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * tx anyway! As far as I can see, all issues solved (certainly nothing RfC-wise any more). --Francis Schonken 21:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)