If you leave a comment for me here, you should watch this page for any reply that I might make. If I have left a comment for you on your Talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) but not here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

A Request for comment has been opened against me. Usually people wouldn't draw attention to this on their Talk page, but in this case, I believe the editors who have done so are acting in bad faith, as a result of losing a survey which established a lack of consensus and a majority opposed to the prefixed use of styles in biographical entries, and in order to chill opposition to a policy which I and many people believe violates the "absolute and non-negotiable" NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Please feel free to comment at the above link. This RfC is now closed.

Whee! There's another Request for comment opened against me. This is an NPOV dispute.

Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. Just one early note - we do use styles at the start of biographical articles, so please don't remove them. Kind regards, jguk 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Styles should not be used at the start of biographical articles unless this practice is universally applied, otherwise it is not NPOV, and does not in any case follow the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) standard. Whig 02:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from - though you are mistaken. The naming conventions apply to the article title - which is why an article would not be styled "HM Queen Elizabeth II". For the article text itself, Wikipedia:Manual of style (biographies) applies, which makes it clear that the style is used.

Note that it is not POV, as the usage required by the Manual of Style is just to repeat what others use in the real world without comment. Someone's formal style is useful and interesting information, which we should report. By putting it right at the start of the article with someone's formal name we also draw least attention to it (that is - we do not make it sound like it's a big deal). Kind regards, jguk 06:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think what you've proposed is a good start; I have just a couple questions. 1) The voting method proposed is one I haven't seen before, and the refered page seems quite abstract. Is there a page you know of that shows how it would work in practice? 2) The options look good, generally, though perhaps we could narrow them a little more. Could number 4 and 5 be combined? If they are kept as is, could we please change the "and/or" in the last alternative to just "or" - it seems from context to be what is meant.

Thank you for proposing something I hope will move the discussion toward a resolution. Jonathunder 01:07, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Looks like someone has gone ahead and started the voting, so perhaps it's too late to change options. I did, though, make a couple small wording changes ("tabled" to "archived" since "tabled" means different things in different parliamentary traditions, also "and/or" to "or"). Thanks again. Jonathunder 01:35, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

This comment was posted while the survey was being discussed and I informed Jonathunder on his Talk page that it was not yet begun. Whig 08:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I thought I'd drop a line here as the Wikipedia space is a hostile environment, but the userspace normally a friendlier one.

I appreciate you're relatively new to WP may not be familiar with standard practices, so it may be helpful to outline the way policy decisions are made - such as the one you are currently proposing on the MoS.

The thing is that policy dictates. It imposes. And people do not like being dictated to and having things imposed on them. And that is why policy develops by consensus. Consensus does not quite require unanimity, but it does require a strong supermajority. On WP it's usually taken as 75-80%. Without consensus, policy fails. It is not accepted, and leads to edit wars and recriminiations when those opposing the "policy" conflict with those in support of it.

We try to avoid votes - the whole idea of consensus is that it shouldn't be necessary to vote - but sometimes they are used. But then a 75-80% vote is needed (at least when the issue is contentious - less contentious issues people are often happy to concede despite 75% not being reached). Also, there should be a fair number of WPians voting (5 or 6 or 7 or 8 is not enough to create policy, for instance). The overwhelming vote is important - it means there is no more than a rump against the policy, plus it means it is more likely to be accepted by those who did not see the vote and were not party to the discussions (which includes both future and existing WPians). This means that very very few proposals succeed - but it does mean that those that succeed in a vote do get generally accepted by the community.

It is for this reason that your approach on MoS (biographies) is unlikely to find a satisfactory answer - and also why an unusual voting system, which could see an option that only has 25% support "win", will not work. Imagine if the vote, under your rules, were to say that the existing approach should be banned in favour of an option gaining 40% support, say. A lot of articles would change. A lot of editors unaware of the vote will disagree and edit back. New editors will come and add styles where they expect them. This will happen not because these editors are being difficult, or even because they have a political point to make, but solely because they are editing an article in a way that seems entirely natural to them. Now, of course, if the situation were different, so that almost everyone agrees that styles should not be used, then we would have no problem. Only a few people would edit them back, and would be easily reversed. But that is not the case here. We can see that through practice and habit and getting used to Wikipedia.

Maybe I could offer a suggestion that you revise your "vote" page to eliminate the voting aspects of it - and only to canvass views on the various "options", and also to note that nothing will change unless it is clear there is an overwhelming majority of WPians in favour of that change. Kind regards, jguk 10:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since the survey is already underway and you proposed no helpful revisions during the entire week of discussion, I think your current stance seems like more attempt at obstruction. The fact is, for the entire time the survey was being discussed and in the weeks before, you opposed any sort of consensus-building measure, even discussion, insisting that the status quo remain unquestioned. Nothing says the outcome of the survey will not be a clearcut consensus, and if the actual counting method is one unfamiliar to you, it is nonetheless a well established method for finding solutions to difficult decisions where strong opposition exists on the extremes, toward a compromise mean that almost everyone can agree to live with. So far, there is consensus that this survey should be taking place, you are the lone objector, so let's see it out and then after two weeks we'll see what opinions the Wikipedia community has expressed. Whig 11:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's quite a project you're taking on. In the U.S. alone there are hundreds of senators and members of congress, governors, cabinet members at any one time, all of them "Honorable"." [1] And then there's the thousands of Ph.D.s who are Doctors. At least they keep their titles, unlike politicians who cease to be honorable at the conclusion of their service (if not earlier). And I hope you're up on your knowledge of the Masonic orders and fraternal lodges, some of whom have special honorifics for their senior members. Hey - you wouldn't be trying to make a point would you? Cheers, -Willmcw 09:08, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

PS: Can I vote on this again? -W Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

PPS: I agree with your stance but please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:55, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

He's not disrupting it; he's actually following a (theoretical) policy (which is, admittedly, quite annoying and the matter of a great deal of debate). Check out his survey on whether or not styles should be included at the beginning of articles and vote on it if you don't like it. I'm sure he'll follow whatever policy is decided on. Titanium Dragon 11:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive as he is claiming something he knows to be false. Whig is fully aware that Governor Bush does not have a style in the same way as the Queen or Pope do. Indeed, as far as I am aware, the US eschews honorifics for its own citizens, jguk 12:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jguk is incorrect. The US absolutely uses honorifics for office holders in formal address. If you go into a US courtroom and refer to the judge as "Mr. So and So" you will be held in contempt. The correct reference is always, "Your Honor" in this instance. Likewise when referring to a member of congress or most state legislators, etc., the style "Hon. So and So" is always used in written correspondence, and so forth. Obviously Jguk may have a misunderstanding of US culture, and this is understandable, but he does not have a basis to selectively revert style for cultures other than his own. Whig 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your user contributions, I'm a bit puzzled. Are you a somewhat irregular user who has just found a cause you are passionate about, or do you have another Wikipedia account by which you are more familiarly known, but have chosen the name Whig to fight this one issue. I think it would be helpful if you could say which - and if you have another Wikipedia account, I think you should be open about what it is so that no-one can allege impropriety about hiding behind names or casting more than one vote. Kind regards, jguk 20:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some edits under my IP address before I had a regular user account. I have no other user accounts, and never have. Whig 03:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to my particular interest in this issue, it was your own personal intransigence that caused me to seek dispute resolution through general discussion and ultimately the present survey. Whig 03:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop going around and adding honorific titles to bunches of articles (i.e. George W. Bush), simply "to inform people of the existing policy and the fact that a survey is underway to affirm it or change it." WP:POINT. – ugen64 01:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An article on George W. Bush ought to begin with President. I am not going around and adding inappropriate titles, I applied styles in a very small number of articles where I thought appropriate, and to the extent I have mistitled anyone I have corrected it myself. Whig 03:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know Lulu in real life, and if so, how? jguk 08:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Whig 08:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to think the appropriate answer to Jguk's question is "None of your damn business." It is well possible that I could either know or not know you IRL, but what on earth relation could that have to Wikipedia? I guess to somehow insinuate there was something wrong in the actual fact (presumably whichever way it was). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Not a whole lot gained by letting him feed whatever conspiracy theory he might have had. Since I don't in fact know you other than as a participant on Wikipedia, I didn't feel there was good cause to let him believe otherwise. For what it is worth, I agree with many of the points you make, and in particular the "use-mention" distinction which you have elaborated upon at several points, but I think you tend to let disagreements turn too personal on occasion and I think it is generally counterproductive to respond with hostility even when you have good cause to be annoyed. Whig 04:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, you'd disagree with me even more if you knew me in person :-).

Btw. I kinda wondered if I might be the person who secretly benefits financially from Condercet: I'm the (volunteer, unpaid) CTO of the Open Voting Consortium, and among other things, we are ultimately committed to letting jurisdictions use whatever tallying method they want (we're agnostic). But if you dig through the OVC stuff, you can probably find words that are non-hostile toward Condorcet. It's an idiotic connection to make, but... Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:02, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

So, given your expertise, then, what do you think of the summarized current results section? I tried to make things as clear as possible so that people won't be confused by the method, how it works and why the result is a fair representation of the ballots. Whig 08:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wouldn't claim expertise on the particularities of Condorcet tallying. In fact, some Condorcet proponents, IMO, go a bit overboard in claiming that Condorcet solves all the weaknesses of IRV. In reality, following Arrow's Theorem, any tallying method comes up with its own "paradoxes." I do kinda think that for general political elections, IRV is easier to explain to voters--which probably counts for more than any slight theoretical advantages Condorcet has.

You've done a great job in summarizing the current results. Unfortunately, I think the cycle that existed when I last looked at the summary is gasoline on the fire. I understand perfectly well that it's no big thing, and not a shock. But all of those with the Holy agenda--and even others who merely proclaimed confusion with the voting technique--are going to claim the cycle is something nefarious, or is a deep flaw in the system. Before the cycle arose, your job was a little easier... but those are the vicissitudes of an actual vote. Maybe the cycle will disappear before vote close (I kinda hope so, as a practical matter). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:35, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Incidenally, my comment on the talk page was not directed at you, jguk 12:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm crashing the discussion, but I just wanted to mention that what's happened in this survey is fascinating. I think Wikipedia is unusual in letting voters a) see others' votes while the voting is in progress and b) letting voters change their votes after having seen other voters' ballots. The sound-bite "with Condorcet, there's no advantage to voting insincerely" breaks down in this situation when there are a group of people who would rather not have a Condorcet winner than see their own preference lose. I'm just a dilettante when it comes to election theory, but I've not been able to find any literature about this situation. Is this truly new? If so, we may want to alert the real theorists about this and point them at the history for the page so they can pull data. I'd be particularly interested as to whether, given a universe of ballots containing a Condorcet winner, if a group of voters stage a cycle-creating action, whether CSSD or another cycle-resolution system will always decide on the prior Condorcet winner or not. TreyHarris 00:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My strong hunch is that it will often (always?) be possible for a voting block to create an unresolvable cycle in any Condorcet vote, given such full knowledge of the other votes. The particular required block size, of course, would depend on how the non-block votes are cast. Well, if the "block" is one person, that's too small; and if the "block" is 90% of voters, they pretty much control the election anyway. But I think medium size minorities can muck things up.

Of course, such strategy voting depends on the block understanding what's going on, and accurately casting strategic/sabotage votes. In the existing situation, it doesn't seem like more than half the block (or the other voters, for that matter), really even understand Condorcet to start with. So I doubt they're going to manage a fine-tuned monkey wrench. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:09, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

No, a bloc of smaller magnitude than the most preferred option cannot create an unresolvable cycle against the most preferred option, unless they coalesce around a compromise option which the voters for the most preferred option also rank highly. In which case, that compromise option may tie or win, but that is part of the beauty of CSSD. The compromise works, when people are willing to find common ground. Whig 18:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not thinking in nefarious enough ways. Say a block prefers A. In fact, they initially vote "A and only A" (i.e. only a first preference expressed). However, there are not enough A-block voters to bring A to the top preference.

Now say that the non-block voters choose among X, Y, Z in a manner to create a cycle (the B-W options are low in everyone's rankings). CSSD can find the weakest preference in the X/Y/Z cycle, it would seem. But what if the A block voters, at the last moment, vote among X, Y, Z in such a way to create an exact equality in the X/Y/Z cycle? (e.g. X:Y=100:95; Y:Z=100:95; Z:X=100:95). At this point, there is nothing to drop among X/Y/Z. Which doesn't mean A wins (or even moves any lower), but it creates "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" in the vote as a whole.

Succeeding in this plan (for disruption, not victory) depends on A-block voters being able to vote after all other voter preferences are known to them. Sealing votes prevents the attack. But the scenario described is not different from that on WP (except in the math skills of the A-block) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

A tie is not the same thing as a cycle. It is possible to have tied outcomes, no matter the voting method used. However, if A>Z voters are of a smaller magnitude than the Z>A voters, nothing the A>Z voters can do will cause A>Z to prevail or even tie. Whig 18:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to a cycle above. Well, to a "tied cycle" (maybe there's a better term); if you read my example in the parens you'll see that I'm not talking about a preference tie between two choices only. I also didn't refer to causing a minority option to win, but just to monkey-wrenching. Honestly, my last note wasn't that long, and I think it describes a theoretical problem rather clearly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:25, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Hm. Yeah. A 3-way tied outcome is possible, but only if the votes lay just right and nothing out of their control tilted the balance. It would be a really stupid thing to try, because they could just as easily put their favored option into an even lower position than otherwise. Whig 19:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. You are nefarious. Thanks for proving the importance of sealed ballots in "real" elections. Whig 19:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that if I vote as follows: A-1, B-2, C-3 then it will be treated as A>B>C>D=E. So I don't have to vote for the two choices I don't like or figure out which one I like worse - since I like them both equally worse (if you get my meaning). TIA Trödel|talk 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your assumption is correct. Whig 15:45, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thx Trödel|talk

Hi Whig —

I think I must protest on Jtdirl's behalf on this current argument (even though I haven't spoken to him, and I'm sure he doesn't need my help). You've gone out of your way to attack him for the notices he posted on user pages, calling his actions "intentional tampering", saying "some kind of censure is appropriate for Jtdirl", that "he encouraged people to vote deceptively", to "vote dishonestly", that he did so "in order to make your favored alternative look more attractive" and "purely for the purpose of trying to spoil the vote."

Since we all agree that people ought to vote on all options, the issue has boiled down to a question of Jtdirl's intent, which you are describing as deceitful and dishonest. However, I believe that Jtdirl's is quite clear from the message he posted. Jtdirl was clearly under the misapprehension that a "first and only" vote would result in an overall lower ranking of that option:

"But only casting one vote is effectively a vote against Alternative 1 because it means that less opposition is recorded against its nearest rival."

He then explained that to record a vote for your least favorite, you must make votes for every other option. So far, I think, we're agreed that Jtdirl did nothing wrong.

What you have beef with, though, is his last paragraph:

"Just be careful though not to copy everyone else doing it. If everyone gives the same other alternatives the same order of votes they may win..."

Here you have ascribed to Jtdirl's motives a dishonest and deceitful attempt to to destroy the vote. While I can understand your view, I don't believe this was Jtdirl's intent, as I can see that his suggestion has a degree of rationality in it: If

i) You want your option, A, to win,

ii) You don't want your least favorite option, Z, to win, and

iii) You are under the belief, true or not, that if everyone votes for B, C, D... in the same order then one of them might end up above A

then his comments make sense. His belief iii may be incorrect, but it was clearly the assumption he was working under.

But this is all actually beside the point. I wasn't so interested in defending Jtdirl than in asking you to stop the attacks. It's clear that you were angry when you first saw the message and asked everyone whether those votes should be discounted, then you backed down from that and said that no votes would be discounted, but refuse to withdraw any comments regarding Jtdirl's dishonesty. Whatever you believe his motives were, I think that there is a degree of doubt in your belief, and that we should therefore go by Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Saying that he encouraged people to "vote dishonestly" "purely for the purpose of trying to spoil the vote" is clearly ascribing motives for which we see no evidence, and plenty of counter-evidence in his statements. These incessant personal attacks between all parties isn't helping anything. I believe that a good first step in getting coherent and rational discussion going would be if people were to start taking back some of their own personal attacks.

— Asbestos | Talk 15:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

His belief iii is correct, not incorrect. He was asking people not to vote their true preferences, i.e., to prevent any option but A from winning, by voting dishonest preferences for B, C, D, in order to block Z. Votes for B, C, D will not block Z. A vote for A and only A is a vote against Z, a vote for A>B>C>D>Z is also a vote against Z, accorded no greater weight for having ranked B, C and D. His mistaken belief that the system could be gamed in this way is not the point, except insofar as it demonstrated a flaw in the Debian modification of CSSD. Asking people not to vote their true preferences is asking them to vote dishonestly, whatever his motivations may have been and however ill-founded his expectations.

And yes, I was angry, but I am not made to feel he acted in good faith simply because he was in error about the consequence. I gladly assume good faith where an advocation to dishonesty is not made. The record to the contrary speaks for itself. Whig 17:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think it a little hypocritical, though, that you and Lulu appear to be discussing votes that you state are not your actual preferences, while criticizing Jtdirl for suggesting that other people do the same. Changing your vote "to try to avoid an inconclusive survey result" may be laudable, but above you note that not voting your true preferences is voting dishonestly, and it is on this categorical principle that you have attacked Jtdirl. As both sets of actions are designed to influence the survey by not voting for one's true preference, but instead by calculating the effect of a ranking on the over-all outcome, I can't help but notice a level of hypocrisy in your attacks.

FWIW, though, I've changed my votes so that 3>1: Options 1 and 2 are clearly illogical and I freely admit that I don't know what I was thinking. — Asbestos | Talk 21:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to Alternative 3, and I prefer to compromise in favor of the "non-Alternative 1" consensus than to allow those who might swing their votes at the last minute to intentionally create a deadlock from using my vote to help them be able to do so. Call it defensive strategy if you like, but it is my honest preference, given Lulu's insightful observation above. Whig 23:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you'll note my last comment on the now-archived thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Vote Corralling in reply to Bratsche: "A compromise can be considered tactical, but it isn't dishonest." Whig 03:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive and move on

IMO, of course. I think you let your anger get the better of you in starting and continuing the whole vote corralling thread. It is better just to assume good faith (albeit an annoying manner) by Jtdirl. I would recommend you move the whole thread to an archived subpage (as I've done for a couple other topics), and wash your hands of the issue. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:56, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Hi, Whig. Maybe it's me, but some info seems to be missing.

You wrote: "Currently, with 63 votes counted, Alternative 3 is preferred 33:30 to Alternative 1 (52% strength), Alternative 1 is preferred 33:22 to Alternative 4 (52% strength), and Alternative 4 is preferred 28:27 to Alternative 3 (44% strength). Dropping the weakest defeat to resolve the cyclical ambiguity, Alternative 3 is currently most strongly preferred. Alternative 5 is currently defeated by all other options."

What happened to Alternative 2? Maurreen 07:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 defeats Alternative 5, but is otherwise defeated by Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, therefore it is neither the Condorcet loser (5) nor a member of the Schwartz set (1, 3 and 4). Whig 11:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't going to wait for ratification before making changes - that is improper IMHO. Trödel|talk 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ratification is as to the convention, not as to whether styles should be prefixed. The latter question is resolved. There is no convention at present, until ratification is completed, but a lack of convention does not mean that the styles remain prefixed until then. Whig 04:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm all for getting rid of styles but there's no immediate hurry. Leave people some time to think about what recent events mean. People are generally more likely to change their mind if you let them do it in their own time. So, please, in the interest of keeping everybody's wikistress down, slow down a bit. Zocky 10:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration, and I'm not about to try to go through and change articles willy-nilly, but I feel it is important that the results of the survey be acknowledged to create a genuine NPOV dispute. Leave it flagged, and discuss on talk page, and we don't have to get into edit-wars while it's being discussed. I think this is the best solution. I spent the better part of a month trying to resolve this issue, a survey has been taken, and if we just ignore the results the "defenders of the crown" aren't about to let up in a few days or a week or a month. The issue is current now, and should be addressed, though in the least intrusive manner, I agree. The NPOV flag for this article is minimum intrusion. Whig 10:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you appreciate the frustration on the other side. There are people who spent months finding out all the right styles and putting them into articles and they will probably soon have to face having them removed and all that work wasted. We're not fighting for the sake of fighting or even for the sake of winning. We're fighting for the sake of making the encyclopedia better and happy editors are an essential part of that.

I wouldn't have called the ratification vote in your place yet either. Once the vote starts, the debate is over and people are not going to change their mind on polarized issues. If you had waited for a while, style supporters would have had time to reconsider what has been said and I'm sure many would have supported the compromise proposal.

So, don't rub the salt in and try to go for a quick kill. We're in this for a long haul and we can't afford bad blood among good editors. Zocky 10:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, but stay cool. The last word has obviously not been spoken on the style issue. While everyone is still talking, please don't continue to revert insertion/removal of tags on Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Revert wars never fixed anything. The dispute is very well known and there is no point to single out one article to highlight it. I do not want to protect this page, and I will be very disappointed if that turns out to be necessary. If you would consider stepping away for just a moment and having the Wrong Version up while we talk it over, I would be grateful. JRM · Talk 10:24, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I'm going to bed, anyhow. I've raised the issue, let it be threshed out for a bit. I think the tag should be there, but I'm not going to revert war over the tag either. Whig 10:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give up on the prefixed Chairman title. I know Jguk has an extremely biased POV, in religious, political, and geographic ways. And his prevalent vandalism is really annoying. However, in this case, I don't think the point your making is even correct. The title is indeed neutral, but it's hardly mandatory to use at the front. E.g. see Junichiro Koizumi, who gets his Prime Minister title at the end of the intro sentence, or likewise (President) Hugo Chávez, or Fidel Castro who doesn't get his title anywhere prominently. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I expect those articles should be fixed too. I think that it is important information to convey to the reader. The main problem right now is that we cannot have a twelve-front revert-war with Jguk, Jtdirl, Proteus et al. I expect that the situation with Jtdirl is going to have to go to an RfC shortly given his repeated personal attacks (see Talk:Pope Benedict XVI) in calling me a liar, etc. Whig 20:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I definitely do not want the articles on Koizumi, Chávez and Castro to begin with their job title. I want that information somewhere fairly early in the articles (which it isn't for Castro, but is for the others), but not prefixed. I'm not singling out those politicians, of course, if you prefer, say the same thing of Chirac, or Martin, or Howard, or Blair (hmmm... I think he's probably mis-styled), or Fox, or Putin, or Fahd, or whoever. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:25, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

We have previously discussed, and others have advised you, to calm down on the prefixed style issue. Unfortunately, this does not seem to have happened. WP is a broad church, and we, quite rightly in my opinion, encourage edits from editors with a wide range of backgrounds and views. This, however, means that we need to be tolerant of others - and in particular, tolerant of those we disagree with most. I would very much welcome it if you would allow the style-wars issue to die down. I have no problem with you raising the initial points, or with you asking the initial questions. But we have now had a wide-ranging discussion, and it is clear no consensus exists. Please do not force the issue. Let others decide how to take it forward.

Let me, even at this stage, offer a potential solution. If you and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters agree to step aside from the style wars (thereby allowing other editors to determine what happens), so will I. I appreciate you are unable to speak for Lulu, but I look forward to your acceptance in principle as a good way to move forward, and to allow both of us to make more constructive edits elsewhere.

In the meantime, I am asking for outside comments on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig. This is just a request to ask you to leave off the style wars for now (and, as noted above, I am willing to do the same myself). Finally, may I express my sincere hope that you take this note in the manner in which it is intended: an attempt to put the wars behind us so we may both continue to edit WP in a constructive manner. Kind regards, jguk 20:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your RfC was made in bad faith, and contains numerous inaccuracies which I intend to address shortly. Your suggestion that you are willing to "leave off the style wars" if both Lulu and I do so is disingenuous. For one thing, I cannot compel Lulu to comply with your "compromise" and therefore even if I personally withdrew but he did not, you would not be bound by your own word to leave off. More importantly, you are not the only involved party on your side of the disagreement, and your offer would not bind others like Jtdirl and Mackensen, et. al. to disengage. This dispute was long simmering before I got involved in the B16 article, and whereas others have not seen the need to try to work towards a resolution of the impasse, I have been an active organizer, and now, after long discussion and a survey in which a majority agreed that the prefixed use of styles violates NPOV, you and those who now find yourselves defending a minority position seek to impose your will anyhow by filing an RfC and attempting thereby to let your defeated status quo ante go unopposed by the lead organizer of the survey which you lost. This RfC is not a "way forward" — it is a way backward. Whig 02:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on my idea at the style survey ratification page? Cheers. Zocky 02:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed shortly - I've been up working all night. Whig, please reconsider your position on the interim policy. I agree with you on the editorial issue - styles should go. But I'm also looking at it from another perspective. I know I'm repeating myself, but there really is no deadline. It doesn't have to be done correctly tomorrow, or next month, or next year. There are other more important issues on Wikipedia, not to mention in real life. Whether Wikipedia uses styles or not will have zero effect on your life, as well as on mine. But continued vehement pursuit of the issue will both fail to change things, at least as things stand now, and make editing less enjoyable for you, me, and many other users. The level of animosity in discussions on wikipedia is too high as it is, there's no need to make it any worse.

So I'll try to address what I think are your remaining concerns:

Take no action

All the action taken so far hasn't really succeded in removing any styles. A freeze would relieve everybody of a quite dull edit war, plus it would stop more styles from being added.

No policy

As said elsewhere, I think that it would be a more NPOV position than the current state of affairs which allows people to claim that obligatory use of styles is an undeniably accepted policy. It would be possible to contest and overturn individual usage - certainly the most controversial ones, and in time, maybe a new convention will arise that will be more agreeable with you.

Styles vs. other honorifics

In your poll many people thought that they were voting about honorifics like "Sir" and "Lord" and some objected to their use. The current guideline and it's detailed version don't shed much light either. That shows that Wikipedia editors don't have a good understanding of what different kinds of honorifics are, and certainly not a clear idea about how they apply to an encyclopedia. Considering that my aim is to collect and digest information about honorifics and their use, it seems to me that it would be useful to include all honorifics just for this reason.

There is also another important reason. In the light of the obvious lack of knowledge about honorifics, I'm worried that people will use other honorifics as battlegrounds for proxy wars over this issue. I'd like to avoid that.

NPOV

There is a genuine disagreement over whether the use of styles is NPOV and over whether that is at issue at all. The interim policy proposal is written so that it's text is acceptable to as many people as possible. I intend to use the "stuff" as a starting point for the ensuing debate. Note that "controversial" simply means "potentially POV" without throwing absolute and non-negotiable policy at people.

Good faith from other editors

If one wants to cooperate in a project like this, there is simply no other way than to assume good faith, even when prior experience shows otherwise. We don't know other editors in real life. There's no way to tell what made them think or behave one way at one time and no way to tell if they'll do the same at another. The main point: people who want to add styles are neither spiteful nor political extremists - they obviously genuinely believe what they're saying. Possibly because of an underlying misunderstanding or a genuine difference of opinions.

All that said: doing this right will require a lot of grunt work before we even start writing proposals, and I have to make a living in addition to spending my time here. I could really use help.

Regards, Zocky 10:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zocky, I really do appreciate the effort you are making to reconcile things. I don't expect or require that styles be removed from all entries immediately or in the next week/month/whatever. We are definitely not talking about honorifics, don't go there, because it's a whole different ball of wax, and even I would vote against removing neutral titles of office like "Queen" or "Pope" or whatever. Ultimately, the style guide should not leave this up to individual page editors, one way or the other, or we will just have an endless edit war on each and every page where prefixed styles are used. Nothing could be more disruptive to Wikipedia than that outcome, but that is precisely what your "default" solution would impose.

Frankly, I don't know that another survey, or multiple surveys, will ever come to a consensus. I think that the already completed survey established that a majority feel that prefixed styles are undesirable and violate NPOV. Even if someone wants to contest that something less than 100% of the participants in the survey who preferred Alternatives 3 and 4 did so on NPOV grounds, there remains a substantial NPOV dispute. Please read the NPOV article, it isn't really something that we can compromise. Find a solution that a consensus accepts as NPOV, and I yield. But I'm tired and frustrated, and I don't mean to come across as impatient with you. I just don't see the point in disregarding the survey that's already been concluded, when "disregard this survey" came in dead last, and you haven't given me anything that hopes to achieve a "more final" resolution a month or a year from now.

I think what might end up being the best (perhaps only) solution is to let the current ratification vote conclude, then make an RfA on the MoS (bio) assuming we still can't come to a consensus. Whig 11:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent excerpt from the NPOV policy:

Anglo-American focus

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on.

And with that, good night. :) Whig 11:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whig, the aim of the RfC is not to have a go at you (although I know RfC unfortunately has some negative connotations). It was to get some views to show you that I am not alone in thinking you have been a bit over-eager in the "style wars" and to suggest that it's best to leave them alone for now (and let others pick up the issue if they so wish).

The other aim was to get further comments on your approach of calling the vote and the way it progressed. I appreciate that before these recent episodes you were an infrequent editor, and probably unfamiliar with the WP approach. Now you are more aware, I'm sure there are things you would do differently in the future.

I certainly do not see the RfC as something hanging over you, and would not want you to feel that way. That is why I am seriously suggesting that you (like Lulu) give the whole thing a rest - and also why I am offering to do likewise. We can then, all three of us, go about improving WP in other ways, rather than spending far far too long discussing what at most is three words in a small number of articles. Kind regards, jguk 11:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I think you should read my response on the RfC itself. I won't follow-up otherwise here except to say again that I hope you will reconsider. Whig 12:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response considers the style wars arguments more than whether we should all (myself included) give it a rest for now. The RfC is not about the arguments rehearsed in the style wars. We can all see that we are not going to get consensus for much now, and to be honest, I think any improvements to the current position are more likely to be made without our contributions. I'd appreciate your agreement to calm down, leave it a while and let others take on any banner we may have. Then we can get back to good productive editing on other pages. Kind regards, jguk 18:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently letting the ratification vote run out on the convention before I consider whether there is any forward progress on other approaches to find consensus in this matter. Not seeing any consensus forming at the present time, I'm still willing to give others a chance to address the issue in a way that leads to some future resolution. I've addressed my concerns with respect to Zocky's approach, and hopefully he will take them into consideration, but I appreciate very much his efforts. I think if you brought an RfC in order to somehow thereby persuade me that I ought to let the status quo ante stand, it was unpersuasive and a great waste of my personal time and that of others, and very much seems like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point at the least. Whig 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I withdrew because I was unsure about the Rfc itself. I noted a lot of chaos at Elizabeth II and then got involved at Juan Carlos. then we were getting into a dispute about whether to say Selassie is God or Jah. I was maybe precipitate in assuming the good faith of those who were making the Rfc against you, but am now not sure they were acting in good faith. I think we should discuss any differences on the talk pages of the various Rasta articles. I thought long and hard before reverting you when I did, --SqueakBox 02:19, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I put together what I hope is a neutrally presented view - would appreciate if you copyedit it to make it more neutral where possible. I hope that pointing out the issues will help avoid them in the future. However, I am frustrated with the changed presentation of the vote from the Survey to the Ratification and doubt I have been as neutral as I should be. Can you take a look?

Also, please note that I support the closure on the Requests for comment and will be commenting there as well. Trödel|talk 23:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts. I regret I don't see Zocky's proposal as addressing my concerns, and I've responded on the ratification page to your proposal. Whig 08:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whig

Just a note to say I am also eager to close the RfC, but I would like some comment from you that, in retrospect, the way the vote was conducted did not work, that you acknowledge that WP operates by consensus and that you will not edit to delete (or reinsert styles) (I'm willing to make a similar editing commitment - except for reserving the right to reverse any edits Lulu makes in the same area). I'm not after blood, and I don't want this to escalate, but I do feel the issue won't be resolved without some conciliatory comment from yourself that recognises the concerns I and the others who supported my comments on the RfC have. Kind regards, jguk 08:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close the RfC. My comments have been made, I need not keep making them repeatedly. Your concerns were not accurately expressed, do not rise to a violation of Wikipedia policy, and are unsuitable for a RfC. I do not agree that a consensus is necessary to enforce the NPOV rule, which expressly overrides even a consensus in the opposite direction. Your lack of good faith is grounds for an RfC itself. I am not prepared to escalate to that at this time, but I think the style dispute will best be resolved by a RfA to review the matter and make a proper and binding determination. Whig 08:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a RFAr against jguk opened at [2]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to notice this fact right here (Whig's page is on my watchlist, since I've edited it before). I made a comment to User_talk:Grunt about Jguk's overall pattern of behavior. It seems like his behavior in the BCE/CE issue is much like is behavior relative to other usage issues (i.e. ignorant, obnoxious, and self-righteous). As I mention to Grunt, I have not specific experience with the date issue, so I cannot comment directly on the RfA. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:16, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

I am not going to comment on the RFAr, just like I never commented on the RFC against you and Whig. I just think some mediation, and some outside intervention, will probably prevented half of the mess that is going on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whig, I noticed that you've been trying to bring some order & fill in the blanks of the rulers of this country. Much as this work is badly needed to be done, there's a couple of things I'm sure you'd like to know about:

1. There is a fairly comprehensive list at Rulers and Heads of State of Ethiopia that I've been working on, which provides the current forms of the names, dates, etc. of these rulers. While I'm not inflexible about most of the material here (please note my comments about the Zagwe dynasty), if you think this material shuld be improved on, please discuss it there. (And I admit that the table itself needs further work -- but my priority has been on the next item.)
2. I have, myself, been working on biographical articles on these rulers. The ones for the Solomonid dynasty up to Iyasus II have been added to Wikipedia; the others from Iyoas I forward are under work as we speak. So you may want to hold off on further contributions in this category until I add those articles -- many of which are not stubs -- to Wikipedia.

P.S. Your Talk page is about 47 Kb in size; you may want to archive part of it. Feel free to ask me if you need help doing this. -- llywrch 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the links, I will try to incorporate and/or supplement what you have. I'd like to have each of the entries themselves show the succession at the bottom of the page as a navigational aid, or alternately/additionally an infobox, as is done for other dynasties. I stopped adding entries once I got back to where I could only stub each entry, so if you can flesh those out and add additional entries as appropriate, that would be great.
• Re: archiving, I'll look into it. I think a lot of the present comments here show a context and continuity with present Wikipedia issues (viz. the survey and the unfortunate RfC filed against me (by jguk, who apparently has a RfAr accepted against him as well, not involving me).

Please don't move any more articles about the Ethiopian Emperors without discussion first; you've started making changes in an area where the usual rules of titulature don't work well. This whole issue of which names should be used is very complicated -- & one that I am still learning as I go along. However, the usual rule from my research is that Throne names are used less often than their personal names, & often introduce many problems of their own: some Emperors had more than one Throne name, some never adopted one, & there appears to be some disagreement over which was the personal name & which was the throne name. (I've left this issue untouched, because so far it looks as if only one author disagrees with the rest, & then only on some Emperors.) Thanks -- llywrch 17:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Persuant to your actions on his user page, I have created a second RFC against Lulu. It is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 2. Perhaps you could check it out. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 11:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....why two? If there is one against him already, and it is still going, you can add evidence, then sign it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 12:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, not true. This is over a different issue, ergo, different RFC. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 13:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 13:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I must protest your accusations of misbehavior. I did not revert the template, and protected it only to prevent further edit-warring. The idea of protection is to force discussion, and it need not be the result of any discussion. Also, please consider m:The Wrong Version and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and know that I did not consider beforehand which version to protect. — Dan | Talk 03:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry for misinterpreting your action, although contextually your protection followed your addition of "evidence" in my RfC, and I do protest your accusations of misbehavior as well. So let's call it even, I'll grant that your actions were in good faith but please do me the same respect. Whig 03:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You probably realised that you'd caught me away from the computer (I had to go to London for the day). I've never actualy closed an RfC, so I'll have to read up on it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! I forgot all about promising to read up on it. I'll do that now (though you might want to ask someone who's done it before — then I could see what they do...). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whig, sorry I couldn't help you. Part of the reason is that I haven't been at Wikipedia much lately, for various reasons. Maurreen 04:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Whig. I've read your alternative proposal and I'm ambivalent for now. Best, Maurreen 02:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the current NPOV dispute at AIDS had grown to 42 it was clogging the talk page - this may have been the intention ;)

After your comment I improved the links at the top of the page.

I wonder if the archive it better resorted by topic?

Sci guy 13:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm trapped in UCLA on a friggin' Mac. Having fun tho. (Arrived safe and sound). Any notion how to get email from the aforementioned friggin' Mac?

• check your mike@b... email 128.97.86.13 00:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Benna, thought I'd drop over to your Talk page to discuss what you're saying on the Talk:Cannabis (drug) page regarding what you claim to be the spiritual or non-such effects of these materials. It is indeed not my business to know too much in the way of specific detail, but I enquire anyhow, whether you base your position on external research, assumptions of some kind, reports of actual cannabis/LSD users, or personal experience. Whig 09:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All I was saying with regard to LSD is that it is more reasonable to believe that someone using LSD would become unaware that their experience is chemical induced that it would be with cannabis. I don't think this is a controversial position. LSD is certainly a more mind shattering substance. There is a massive body by both cannabis and LSD experience reports that makes this quite clear. LSD tends to have an ego-loss effect that is far less pronounced in cannabis. My own experience bares this out but that's not important. I don't think you could find anyone would would argue that cannabis distorts reality more than LSD. Benna 10:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a "Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).

AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 23:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the endless debate/rows etc over styles on royal and papal articles I've been thinking as to what is the best way to come up with a consensus solution. Styles have to be in an article, but using them upfront is, I think, a mistake and highly controversial. I've designed a series of templates which I think might solve the problem. There are specific templates for UK monarchs, Austrian monarchs, popes, presidents, Scottish monarchs and HRHs. (I've protected them all, temporarily, because I want people to discuss them in principle rather than battle over content and design right now.) I've used a purple banner because it is a suitable royal colour and is also distinctive. They are eyecatching enough to keep some of the pro-styles people happy; one of their fears seemed to be that styles would be buried. But by not being used they are neutral enough to be factual without appearing to be promotional. I'd very much like to hear your view. I'm going to put them on a couple of user pages and ask for a reaction. There needs to be a calm debate on them this time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 03:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Royal styles of Sharavanabhava

Papal styles of Pope Paul VI

Monarchical styles of Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sharavanabhava (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have done nothing to disrupt Homeopathy

Decline reason:

Please stop making disruptive edits and work out issues on the talk page. And be glad it was only a 12 hour block.

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- But|seriously|folks  16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Whig. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WhigTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate.

-- Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]