Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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.

[edit] Description

User:Brya has made a series of controversial edits to pages in biology (specifically botany), reverting changes made. Discussion and informal mediation has been attempted on his talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SB Johnny (talk • contribs) .

In adition to his editing practice, Brya has shown an attitude toward WP:MoS and WP:CON (i.e. that by their very virtue of being guidelines and not policies, he is in no way bound by them in his editing) that is unaccpetable for a Wikipedian. Aditionally, despite repeatedly clashing with WP:TOL and WP:PLANTS members, he has posted on these projects' talk pages less than ten times combined.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Presented by User:SB Johnny

  1. History for APG II System (note reverts)
  2. Tautonym and Tautonymy: Brya continually reverts any changes made to thess pages, insisting that the words belong in 2 separate fields of study ([1]).
  3. Note that Brya continues to revert edits as this discussion goes on ([2])
  4. Brya's new trick is to create more or less meaningless small articles out of larger ones. After a merge proposal for Tautonym and Tautonomy, he simply went and created two new articles. Also see Tulipwood, where he removed the taxobox (which I did not create), then when I put it back in (with a plant-stub tag), he reverted again, with a rather insulting edit note (see Talk). Same show, different day, still an issue of WP:OWN.

[edit] Presented by User:Circeus

  1. Ghillean Prance: Brya remove ISBN and turn header into bolded text numerous times: [3], [4], [5]. Practically the entire page history is made of attempts by User:MPF to conform to the MoS and Brya reverting him.
  2. Loranthaceae: Brya makes POV edits to the taxobox and removes a list of genera without proper justification: [6]. The next days are a series of reverts between him and MPF.
  3. Botanical name 2/3 of the history is Brya and MPF slowly revert warring. Typical example: [7], where Brya reverts without explanation to a version without links to the plant articles and using non-standard names.
  4. Leitneriales: After MPF and user:Greatgavini add pertinent details, Brya reverts with the cryptic "restore" summary he loves. Short edit war ensues. When redirect to corkwood after asserting that the page contains no information of its own, he reverts with arguments that have nothing to do with the merge.
  5. Santalales: Brya adds pertinent APG-II information, coupled with PoV edit of the Taxobox and that improper external links header he likes. MPF reverts partly. Revert war ensues.
  6. Misodendraceae: Both Brya and MPF repeatedly revert. Brya's last revert has "rv violation of Manual of Style", while he is clearly violating it himself by removing the header formating.
  7. Family (biology): MPF makes a minor copyedit, Brya reverts.
  8. Coniferae (now a redirect): MPF copyedits for italics and minor stuff, a very short revert war ensues until I redirect to pinophyta
  9. Ranunculaceae: Brya edits in a pro-APG POV fashion and blatantly violates the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. After MPF and user:SB Johnny have sorted the mess, Brya steps in and unilaterally reverts with that lovely little "Restore" edit summary of his.
  10. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/taxobox usage: Brya attempts to justify his edits by unilaterally modifying this longstanding style guide for taxoboxes. He is reverted within less than an hour by user:Gdr.
  11. In numerous instances, Brya removes an important part of the taxobox since its inception: [8].
  12. When asked to justify his various reverts, he accuses User:MPF of stalking him.
    • Moreso, he utterly fails to properly cite any policy to justify his reverting.

[edit] Presented by User:MPF

  1. In a similar case to many of the above, after I edited Viscum album to MOS and WP:TOL style and added further referenced descriptive information about the plant, which Brya effectively reverted with the highly inappropriate edit summary "removing clutter and original research taxonomy".
  2. Following my editing APG II system to remove italics from plant family names (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Article titles and common names: "Names of higher taxa are capitalized but not italicized"), Brya reverted repeatedly, and claimed that "In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change"; i.e., that as he started the page, his style as the page starter must be followed. Yet he has signally failed to heed his own advice on this, adding italics to higher plant ranks on numerous pages where earlier contributors had not used them. The following is a small sample of pages he has so edited; numerous others exist: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Clearly he is more interested in imposing his own style throughout, rather than following the otherwise overwhelming consensus.
  3. See also presentation by User:MrDarwin on my talk page, where he cited Brya's "breathtaking arrogance" (for which MrDarwin awarded Brya a "Does Not Play Well With Others Award").

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:MoS
  2. WP:OWN
  3. WP:CON
  4. WP:TX (style guide for taxoboxes use)
  5. WP:NPOV (APG vs. Cronquist)
  6. WP:AGF
  7. WP:CIVIL
  8. WP:POVFORK

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User_talk:Brya#Deletions_and_revertions
  2. User_talk:Brya#Manual_of_Style
  3. User_talk:Circeus#Vis_a_vis_User:MPF_and_User:Brya

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. User:SB_Johnny
  2. User:Circeus

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. MrDarwin 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Quick summary: in his now nine-month campaign of harassment MPF has found some support for his current edit war in Circeus and SB_Johnny. In some cases MPF is 'editing' pages that have not a letter out of place merely to enforce his ideas about typography (in violation of the MoS), in others he is pushing his original research taxonomy or some other PoV.

The long version: Wikipedia has great potential for spreading information. This goes both ways: it can spread misinformation as well as good information. I am involving myself only with the botany parts of Wikipedia.

Plants are many things to many people. Many plants are used by man, often for many purposes. One and the same species can be used as an ornamental, an oil plant, a fiber plant, for medicinal purposes etc. Each such usage represents a world of its own, involving different cultures, levels of technology, linguistic habits, etc. Its name as an ornamental may be different in one country from that in another country and it may be known under even further names by those who use some product derived from it. The USDA uses the prefered name douglas-fir (note the hyphen) for a tree. Foresters in the west of the US use the names "fir", "yellow fir" or "red fir" depending on who you speak to (and where). The timber is traded as douglas fir but old growth wood may be traded as "Oregon pine" in certain of its export markets. Thus, such names may or may not mean the same. Sensitivity is called for.

In addition to this welter of common names there are botanical names (scientific names) which are supposed to be the same the world over.

Dealing with plants means that selecting a strategy of dealing with plant names. My personal position is that every name is a label, a key to a particular body of information. Every name that is widespread use deserves appropriate treatment (in its own context), so as not to lose information. This means I am in favor for respect for any name, and for making sure that its context is preserved.

Such perfectly NPoV position tend to be very unpopular, taking flak from all the vested-interest groups. These days, checking facts is very inpopular and people act from their belief. If facts are checked it proves that many things that look imbelievable at first glance are eminently true. Truth is stranger than fiction. Some of the issues at stake here:

Common names; I have not been involved with many such pages, as I learned early on that any page dealing with plants at the level of species is zealously guarded by MPF who will revert edits just for the hell of it, no matter how wrong the page he is reverting to is and who is forcifully guarding his ideas of what a plant page should look like (such as always wikilinking the first mention of leaf , and always including leaf size as an important fact for any plant). Level of error in such pages tend to be high (there are notable exceptions where people took an interest and did agood job), and it is just not worth it. Only very occasionally I make an attempt at such a page (dropping the owner of such a page a message at the same time). OK so once I participated in a vote when MPF had decided he did not like the name tamarack that is in all the books and had decided to invent and publicize his own common name for the species, however, I was specifically invited to participate in the vote. Not my initiative.

Nomenclature: nomenclature deals with the rules of formal names. These rules are very precise. When I came here wikipedia was a mess in this respect. Mostly a schoolbook view of a joint nomenclature applying to all living things, with an emphasis on the animal point of view. Over time I succeeded in separating out the botanical nomenclature form the zoological nomenclature and put in the basic elements of botanical names. I only dealt with zoological nomenclature at the most basic level, as far as required to make the split work. The case of tautonomy is an example: this could do with more detail on how the ICZN deals with this, it would not hurt to document when and why the ICZN has abolished tautonym as a formal term and it might include a paragraph on how tautonym continues in informal use. However this true for all of zoological nomenclature. I will only take responsibility for my alterations (which are sound) and have left the zoological nomenclature mostly as it was. I have not noticed anybody else wanting to contribute anything on the matter either, although attempts to reinstate schoolbook ideas do happen.

The most urgent problems with plant taxonomy in wikipedia are fairly simple and deal with taxoboxes. Personally I am not a big fan of taxoboxes per se as they clutter up the page, and if the page is short a taxobox can completely overwhelm the page. In many articles the mention of just the family would be quite adequate, with taxoboxes at only the higher levels. However the big point is that if taxoboxes are to be used they should be correct. Prior to 2004 Wikipedia used the Cronquist system (1981) for flowering plants. The taxoboxes were correct under that system (I hope). After the first [proposal (see 3)] was made in May 2004 a partial switch was made: the top half of the Cronquist system was retained and the lower half of the APG II system was inserted (see [[51]]. This has led to taxoboxes which either a) present an original (wikipedia-only) taxonomy (in clear violation of the no original research policy) or b) present a Cronquist taxonomy as if it were an APG II taxonomy (a grave falsehood). The matter was partially discussed here [# 10 Dicot flowering plant taxoboxes] with it being acknowledged that the taxoboxes do include a paraphyletic taxon, which especially in this case is truly horrible. However, in spite of my appeal for a simple and straighforward solution (if you claim to follow APG, the you should actually do so) nothing was done about. So on new pages I used modified taxoboxes, as they might be if APG II was followed consistently (compatible with [52]). I don't see how I can required to violate the Wikipedia:No original research policy, only because others do so.

Italics. It is not easy to track the history of italics in botanical names at the higher ranks. Certainly the first international botanical rules (of 1906) used italics in the higher ranks, in many cases but not consistently. The successors followed this example, using both styles in the same book, and switched to italics for all names in all ranks in 1994. In this they lagged several decades after the ICNB which had adopted this style decades earlier. The ICNCP followed the ICBN. As pointed out at 1 and 2 this is well-established style in publications and the internet.

As to the argument that this was decided by the ToL plant group, there is a lot to say on that as well. The first and foremost is that this group should not be overriding general wikipedia policies, but should be working with wikipedia not against it (as they do with their original research taxonomy). Formally they do so as note the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life:

A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in these articles. These are only suggestions, things to give you focus and to get you going, and you shouldn't feel obligated in the least to follow them.

And the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants:

Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians

However there is no clear agreement on anything. All those who contributed are interested in animals and give cursory attention to plants. The whole thing is poorly thought out. There is a noteworthy remark Wikipedia:Naming_conventions under 2.2

"Scientific names are always written in italics."

which if taken literally prescribes just what I am doing. But there never has been unanimity on the topic among users. This is also relevant

On the whole, I am not pushing for a particular style. I am trying to produce readable pages and if it helpful to italicize botanical names on the pages I am making I am doing so.

As to general politeness, I would like to point out that from the very first I have had MPF pound in his style (uncommented reverts of even the most careful edits; denying basic facts, not giving reasons, etc). I have consistently tried to be a lot more polite to everybody than MPF was to me. Of course even being twice as polite as the MPF actions is still well below what would be the ideal in politeness. I am doing the best I can in the general warlike atmosphere at wikipedia.

[edit] As to the points presented by User:SB Johnny

1 History for APG II System (note reverts):

Comment : The history is clear: page was started and all content was added by Brya (with a contribution by MrDarwin) and the page was attacked by MPF

2 Tautonym and Tautonymy: Brya continually reverts any changes made to these pages, insisting that the words belong in 2 separate fields of study ([53]).

Comment: First of all let me point out the circumstances. User:SB Johnny had just stepped into an edit war on the side of the aggressor and was actively continuing the edit war. Secondly, he was making direct threats himself. He did not consult me on the matter of tautonym, or on how an improvement might be effected. He just inserted a schoolbook version which was verifiably atrociously wrong, presented his edits as a matter of editting style while clearly his objections to the page were not editorial but with the subject matter. I did what I could to make him go check the basic facts. He point blanc refused, making it impossible to have any kind of forward going discusssion. Arguing from belief only is a fruitless matter. If he had shown any willingness to acquire a basic awareness of the issues something might have been achieved, but he insisted on warring on the article page instead (there is a policy discouraging this).

3 Note that Brya continues to revert edits as this discussion goes on ([54])

Comment: Blatantly untrue. I corrected a (bad) mistake I had made myself and which I had unaccountably overlooked. However SB_Johnny did revert to his version, demonstrating that he is still unaware of basic terminology relevant to the topic.

4 "new trick"

a) tautonym and tautonymy.
Comment Several people expressed a preference for a single page dealing with the topic across the several fields involved rather than separate pages dealing with the separate fields individually. Theoretically this could be made to work, although to do this properly would require recruiting four of five editors with specialised knowledge of the respective fields (editors which would have to be newly recruited from outside wikipedia). In the meantime the pages tautonym and tautonymy are in disarray, not meeting even the most basic requirements of factual correctness. Everybody is a critic, but nobody wants to do even a minimum of work (OK, MrDarwin excepting).
At the suggestion of Josh I made two new separate pages of cold hard fact, so that the wikipedia user can find at least some useful information (if he manages to circumvent the mess at tautonym). I can only suggest that SB_Johnny get his act together and decide what he wants and then make a realistic edit in the tautonym page he has staked out as his property, by right of conquest.
b) tulipwood
Comment: the page history speaks for itself. I created the page (a beginner's mistake: the material is too good for wikipedia) and am maintaining it. When SB_Johnny bent it out of all usable shape, without adding anything whatsoever, I put it back into shape. There was nothing I could incorporate from SB_Johnny's edit as there was nothing there. Just to make doubly sure I moved all SB_Johhny's material to a new page, but he turned it into a redirect (correctly but inconsistently), thereby agreeing that there was nothing there in the first place.

[edit] Points presented by User:Circeus

1. Ghillean Prance: Practically the entire page history is made of attempts by User:MPF to conform to the MoS and Brya reverting him.

Comment: page history is clear: page was created entirely by Brya and attacked by MPF as part of his ongoing in his ongoing edit war. As to the apparently all important ISBN number. I did not pay this much attention, it looked like a non-essential addition (was obviously a side issue in the edit war). Also I could vouch for everything I included, which was not the case for the ISBN number (being added by somebody who is happy to get three out of four facts right). A choice of an ISBN number indicates a preference for a particular edition of the book (and would require a reason for the choice). Of course I am very sorry to have mentioned the book at all (books and wikipedia don't mix).

2. Loranthaceae: Brya makes POV edits to the taxobox and removes a list of genera without proper justification: [55]. The next days are a series of reverts between him and MPF.

Comment: page history shows I revised the page and was seized on by MPF in his edit war. Circeus apparently belongs to the school of thought that insists that a family description MUST have a list of genera copied from the DELTA site. As pointed out at the time 1 and 2
  1. this list does not add real information, but just clutters up the page with redlinks
  2. it likely is misinformation as the list appears to be from 1998 and for many families the member genera have changed radically since 1998
  3. it is a copy-and-paste from a copyrighted website, not even giving credit to the source.

A link to the site will be better from any angle. If risks with copyright violations are to be taken they had better have a purpose.

3. Botanical name 2/3 of the history is Brya and MPF slowly revert warring.

Comment: page history is clear: page was created, and maintained by Brya and attacked by MPF who is not only attacking the italics which are highly appropriate here, as the ICBN does italizice names throughout, but especially is attacking the general nature of the page so that it will no longer be a page on botanical names in general but on the smaller set of names used in MPF-created and favored pages. It is a clear self interested act by MPF, protecting his vested interests.

4. Leitneriales:

Comment: arguments remain valid

5. Santalales:

Comment: I revised it for maximum readability, and added taxonomiuc perspective. Deleteing the text was dubious, but due to its nature it was not likely to be useful to the reader (out of style with other such pages). It is almost impossible to check the facts here. It was unclear what concept of Santalales (out of several different ones) these facts refer to. My experience is that in wikipedia such listings

are often copy-and-paste jobs. I am unsure either way. 6. Misodendraceae:

Comment: page history is clear: page was created by Brya and attacked by MPF

Etc.

[edit] Presented by User:MPF

1. In a similar case to many of the above, after I edited [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Viscum_album&diff=54094908&oldid=54047802 Viscum album] to MOS and WP:TOL style and added further referenced descriptive information about the plant, which Brya effectively reverted with the highly inappropriate edit summary "removing clutter and original research taxonomy".

Comment: page history is pretty clear: I created the page, as a basic page of a popular plant, presenting a clear picture and allowing the user to find his way to other relevant pages. MPF pounced (note the time table) to put in his favorite kind of detail andd added a taxonomy which to all appearances had been invented by him on the spot by adding up two different taxonomic treatments which may or may not have been compatible and certainly did not cover the whole range of the species. Anyway this too did not add anything. Also note that I stayed well away from the Viscum page created by MPF although it falls well short of what such a page should be.

2. Following my editing APG II system ...

Comment: There is nothing inconsistent about it. It is not the page starter who must be followed but the first major contributor. There is a point where a subsequent contributor becomes the first major contributor. It is all relative.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:MoS: I scrupulously follow the MoS
  2. WP:OWN: there is nothing in this policy that I disagree with. I am always open to meaningful additions to any page I made or edited. When I am in doubt if an addition is meaningful I am also always leaving the new edit the benefit of the doubt. I do try and maintain pages I made or edited, including maintaining maximum readability
  3. WP:CON: I am consistently trying to build consensus, albeit on a long term plan, as wikipedia is in the straw-to-make-bricks stage where botany is concerned. I am avoiding conflicts and adding meaningful building blocks.
  4. WP:TX (style guide for taxoboxes use) I am roughly following this except where this conficts with stated policy
  5. WP:NPOV (APG vs. Cronquist). I am carefully NPoV (perhaps more so than anybody else), treating both APG and Cronquist with due respect. I am not in favor of chopping up either system and using parts of it in an original research taxonomy (in itself PoV).
  6. WP:AGF. I am always assuming good faith, until the point where this is no longer possible. If somebody starts edit wars with frightening regularity then this places limits on the good faith I can assume.
  7. WP:CIVIL. Well, I am trying to as civil as I can, and as stated above I feel I am well above the level used by MPF and SB_Johnny. I keep trying to have them argue the facts, but in vain. Do note the ultimate insult by SB_Johnny of attaching a stub tag ("condemned as unfit") to the tulipwood page.
  8. WP:POVFORK. SB_Johnny has only himself to blame for the cases he refers to.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Brya 20:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Although Brya has made valuable contributions, and his viewpoints about the incompleteness of APG II and about many other subjects have merit, his actions detailed above are in sharp contrast to his own statement, "There are all too many people on Wikipedia who care nothing for content but only about how things look and how they conform to some pet rule they believe in." Were he in an edit war over substantive issues, he would likely garner more support. Likewise, if this weren't an encyclopedia, where some amount of consistency is considered a feature, his insistence on having his way with issues which are in the final analysis very minor would not be so disruptive. But in this case, he should follow community consensus on "pet rules" and turn his talents to the constructive contributions that he claims to prefer.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Curtis Clark 04:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Circeus 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. NoahElhardt 18:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  5. JoshuaZ 20:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. KP Botany 19:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. MrDarwin 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

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