Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

What is the dispute?
I have honestly been trying to figure out what dispute any of the position endorsers think they are trying to resolve. Each one seems to have a distinct dispute, all of which reflect the subtext "don't disagree with us on style usage." But from Jguk's summary, I see a number of candidate disputes:


 * 1) Lulu created an autobiography page
 * 2) Lulu didn't make very many edits until recently
 * 3) Lulu made many edits to the B16 article (including too many reversions)
 * 4) Lulu made numerous arguments on the style usage survey
 * 5) Lulu said mean things about Jguk
 * 6) Lulu added style prefixes to articles that did not have them
 * 7) Lulu is new to WP
 * 8) Lulu doesn't understand consensus
 * 9) Lulu briefly made a negative characterization of (banned) user NCdave

Branching out to the other stylists, I also see:


 * 1) Lulu thinks style supporters like the pope
 * 2) Lulu was 3RR'd
 * 3) Lulu doesn't take this RfC seriously
 * 4) Lulu wrote inaccurate edit summaries

What exactly do the style supporters imagine will resolve these numerous disputes. My summary execution? Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:15, 2005 May 18 (UTC)


 * An apology for your outrageous behaviour and your word that you will attempt to act in a more civilised way in future. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 08:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu has been blocked for a 3RR violation
I've blocked Lulu for 48 hours for a second violation of the three revert rule with regard to this issue at Pope Benedict XVI. Had I known there was this RfC, I probibly would have warned him and added his conduct to this page. Should he be unblocked to allow him to comment on this issue? Gentgeen 00:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * after thinking about it, I have reduced the block to a 10 additional minuite slap on the wrist. Lulu should be able to edit again at around 0:45 UTC. Gentgeen 00:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Did he or didn't he?
With all due respect to Gentgeen, I am confident I did not actually violate 3RR&mdash. I do not know who made the claim I had, but I have a hunch about it. I made three revisions to B16 in 24 hours (but not four). And while two of those were putting back the "styled as" form, the last one was simply linkifying the prefixed Holiness. Yeah, I need, psychologically, to stop worrying about the grating style usage&mdash;and two revisions is indeed too many also. But on the actual rule, I was technically compliant. (it doesn't matter, see below comment)

Let me repeat it here to be clear: I plead a most sincere mea culpa for getting carried away editing the B16 page. I should not have done so, and I will not do so again.

I was wrong to treat it as such a serious matter in my own mind: if the wrong version appears on one page (or even a few dozen pages) out of a half million, it will not kill WP. I got way too wrapped up in worrying about the "slippery slope" of POV articles.

Note one minor thing: The first link is a weird edit error. I obviously did not intend to change the middle of the article to a malformed version of my own signature. My best guess is that I pasted something in where I should not have, but I'm not quite sure. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:45, 2005 May 17 (UTC)


 * 18:31 15 May
 * 22:24 15 May
 * 04:26 16 May
 * 17:20 16 May


 * Those are just moving/removing the style. There are also the two where you wikified it (which I approve of, but I don't approve of revert wars). Gentgeen 03:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is borederline, I'd have thought. The last three all count, but the first one is significantly different from them (mind you, it's reduced my support for him). Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * While I endorsed, and still endorse, the complaints against Lulu rather than the support for him, I do think it's probable that the insertion of his signature into the Pope Benedict article was an error - probably through pasting the wrong thing, as he suggests above. Ann Heneghan 21:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this RfC even properly certified?
Granted, Lulu "certified" it himself. But I don't think we should take that seriously at all. So that leaves just Jguk. I don't think that RfC's should be turned into a joke. What next, maybe people start RfC'ing themselves and certifying it with sockpuppets? Don't waste our time. Whig 11:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Lulu quite deliberately certified this RfC (he has made comments on his talk page that show this was intentional, not a mistake). It is believed to be the first instance of someone certifying a RfC about their own behaviour - and there is nothing in the rules to stop it. I doubt people will start RfC'ing themselves and certifying it with sockpuppets. Kind regards, jguk 11:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Intentional or not, it's absurd and ought not to be regarded as proper certification. Since you're the one person who brought the RfC forward, at the moment, I don't think you can be expected to rule on the validity of the second certification. So, what Lulu is saying, by certifying, is that he contacted and attempted to resolve this issue with himself, and failed to do so. Right. Whig 12:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


 * In which case, Lulu would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I trust you aren't implying that he's doing that. Mackensen (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Chill, Whig
Don't worry about it Whig. The RfC was utterly non-serious from the start, and that fact is not affected a whit by whether I certified it.

For one thing, there's no evidence whatsoever that any resolution was sought prior to this RfC (nor of what it is that might be resolved), only evidence of the fact Jguk doesn't like me. Jguk is like an over eager schoolboy with a touch of OCD on this; and unfortunately, a small collection of people who should have more maturity want to "get even" for losing the style-usage vote.

Let's just let them play their little self-important game for a while. Hopefully Zocky (or someone else) will appeal for greater moderation all around; and we can eventually move forward on a more consistent and less POV MoS policy. But if not, there are still 560k WP articles that are not affected by the stylists' shennanigans. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:56, 2005 May 17 (UTC)


 * Careful, Lulu. I disagree, and think you were very close to personal attack above.  I fail to see how the RFC was non-serious.  Do you think it was a joke?  I don't, jguk doesn't, and a fair few others don't either.  I happen to disagree that anyone actually lost that vote.  I participated, yes, but I completely disagreed with the format.  I suggest, if you really want to show good faith, that you get on with writing articles.  I can count but 40 of your edits that were actually in any way to do with style-unrelated articles that aren't David Mertz.  I might see more of your case if you showed some dedication to wikipedia that wasn't some weird ostensibly NPOV crusade. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Posted places
I've added RFC notices on talk pages mentioned in this RFC. They should be removed after the RFC runs out:
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles
 * Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification
 * Talk:Pope Benedict XVI
 * Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

Zocky 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see no indication in the guidelines for RfCs that this cross-posting is warranted. It just looks like spam to me (or perhaps an attempt to recruit "votes"). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:52, 2005 May 16 (UTC) (OK, I'm convinced)


 * I don't think that there's any harm in this; none of the places he posted is likely to garner more votes against than for. It's only disapproved of if the poster chooses articles or people likely yo swing to one side of the issue. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My only intention was to let people who have those articles on their watchlists know that there's a RFC. It seems to me they are the ones that are likely to be able to provide meaningful comment. There was certainly no intent to pick and choose. Zocky 23:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)