Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neutrality (MoS)

Add links
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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC).

Special note: A page about Neutrality already exists, about his controversial username. I have suffixed this page with "(MoS)" in order to distinguish the two complaints.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description[edit]

The Manual of Style states that the logical quoting style should be used at all times. I have been editing a lot of pages to change them from the conventional style to the logical style. However, Neutrality has been reverting these changes, giving no description and listing them as a minor change. When prompted, he claimed that the MoS was wrong, and that both types are acceptable, and the author's preference should be adhered to.

Also, Neutrality attempted to change the MoS to reflect his viewpoint. It was quickly reverted, and he was lambasted on the Talk page. He also deleted a comment I placed on his talk page entitled "Quoting style (again)", which asked him to stop doing this.

Evidence of disputed behaviour[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [1] Featured article for September 25, 2004 (Du Fu).
  2. [2] Featured article for September 23, 2004 (Black Hole).
  3. [3] Featured article for September 19, 2004 (Cricket).

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. [Wikipedia:Manual of Style]
  2. Ignoring consensus.

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:Neutrality/Archive_8#Quoting_Style – Warning, ignored.
  2. Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style#On_quotations_and_punctuation_marks – MoS talk page where Neutrality gives a reason for his actions.
  3. User talk:Wereon#Quotation_marks – Message from Jallan informing Wereon of Neutrality's edit of the MoS.
  4. User talk:Wereon#Your_comments_are_offensive. – Message sent from Neutrality claiming that Wereon's comments were offensive.
  5. [4] – diff of the deletion of Wereon's supposed "offensive" request to stop the reversions.
  6. Question posed to Neutrality about this, here

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Wereon 14:13, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. El Chico! Talk 14:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Note that this user is, admittedly, the same person as WikiWatch, 33413, Tasty Sandwich, et al. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:46, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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.

{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}

I'll give this highly frivolous RfC the attention it deserves:

  1. The MoS does not "belong" to one member alone
  2. Arbitrarily changing grammar systematically is highly annoying.
  3. British English is no more or less valid than American and Canadian English.
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 17:04, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. David Gerard 23:25, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 00:09, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:11, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

This is a dispute over a stylistic convention, not user conduct. There is nothing about Neutrality's behavior here that cannot be said equally about Wereon. Rex071404 has no connection to this matter other than having several long-running disputes with Neutrality elsewhere. The change to the Manual of Style was quite legitimate in the spirit of being bold, and when it was reverted and discussion on the talk page apparently preferred the older version, Neutrality respected this and did not try to reinstate his edit.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Michael Snow 04:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 17:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  3. —No-One Jones (m) 17:58, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  4. David Gerard 18:18, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  5. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
  6. Vamp:Willow 11:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Neutrality_(MoS)&oldid=1138660755"