Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig

I've added RFC notices on talk pages mentioned in this RFC. They should be removed after the RFC runs out:

Zocky 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Whig

I know I should write something in the RfC page instead of in the discussion page, but Wikipedia is taking up too much of my time already, and I don't want to write a "response" unless I've looked through lots of old edits, which I don't have time to do at the moment. Perhaps if this discussion is still going on next week, I might add something to the main page.

The complaints against Lulu and against Whig were made at the same time, and seemed to be linked. I endorsed the complaint against Lulu; I had noticed at the time some of the issues which were brought up. Going on my memories of the discussion and vote on styles, and a brief look through edit histories, I do not think I can endorse the complaints against Whig. I'm not happy with the outcome of the vote, but that's hardly a reason for a RfC. I disagree with the method and the wording. I also do not feel that 53% is a proper consensus, especially since there were actually more first preferences for Alternative 1 than for Alternative 3. However, that's all irrelevant to the issue of Whig's behaviour. Other than that he became over-eager to remove styles before the vote had been ratified (hardly a major crime!), I don't see what the problem is. Unlike Lulu, Whig did not (as far as I know) vandalize any user page, or provide misleading or abusive edit summaries. I saw nothing that would indicate that it would be impossible to resolve a dispute with Whig. I'll leave this for the moment, but provide two diffs that will illustrate that it was possible to resolve differences with Whig [1] and (an even better example from a time that Lulu was rushing around removing the style from Pope Benedict before the survey was completed) that Whig was not disruptive [2]. Ann Heneghan 23:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that, in general, Whig has been far more polite and cordial in discussion than Lulu has. At the same time, I think Whig's behavior has been inappropriate on several counts. In the first place, I don't think he organized the vote in an open manner. He selected the options to be voted on without any real consultation, and without submitting his proposed text beforehand for approval. If he had done so, I am fairly certain it would not have been approved. Furthermore, he set a particularly complicated voting method that most people did not easily understand, and which most people certainly didn't understand the actual tabulation of, also without any discussion. It is normal procedure for a vote to discuss beforehand all the questions to be voted on, and how voting should take place, before the vote actually begins. Although there was some discussion of this, Whig patently failed to do this. (Ack...have to go out now, but I'll continue this later). john k 01:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whig's bad-form reversions

Hey Whig, if you want to delete my comments supporting your case, go ahead, but it's not only extremely bad form but also rather, um, foolish. 68.6.40.203 12:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need anonymous allies, really. You interrupted a formal statement by Maurreen to insert your own comments without even signing them as such, and likewise prefixed one of my statements without signing to make it appear as if I said what you said, and it was all very ambiguous and improper, IMHO. If you are not a registered user of Wikipedia you really shouldn't be involved in an RfC issue anyhow, and if you are a registered user but currently posting under an anonymous IP, then I suggest you login and sign your comments appropriately. Whig 15:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to you to decide who should or should not be involved in what, or to remove comments because you "don't need" them. You had no right to remove my comments. One of my comments was misplaced in Maurreen's formal statement; that should have been moved. That was one of two of my comments that were unsigned -- I should have signed them. But you also removed properly placed signed comments, for no apparent reason other than your personal prejudice concerning anonymity. 68.6.40.203 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not such good reversion

It was not appropriate for 68.6.40.203 to insert content in the middle of a formal statement. Such comment should either go along with a signed support of Maurreen's comment, or in the later discussion area. However, it is also not appropriate for Whig to remove the outside comments entirely. Do as I do: when a comment is placed in an inappropriate location, preserve the words themselves, but move them to a more appropriate location in the overall document. An IP-only user indeed might be given less weight than a username, but the comments should not be deleted outright. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:13, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Well said. 68.6.40.203 20:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for moving my comment, --SqueakBox 00:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

NIH censors NIDA article

I saw your work on the NIDA article. Nice and swift editing job. Took out some real bunk nice and quick. reason i write is because the National Institute Health has somehow turned the article on the National Institute of Drug abuse and into a bowl of propaganda clippings. once you removed the neutrality warning they went right back to old tricks. They've removed every mention of controversial research. Every external link to any website other than NIDA.gov has been removed.

you're help is formally requested

-B