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

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: 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• (Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters | talk | contributions)

---

Statement of the dispute

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

User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters made his first edit on 12 July 2004. His sixth edit was to create an article on himself (David Mertz). He was, however, an irregular editor, On 5 April 2005, he made his 41st edit, which was to deface another WPian's userpage [1] (reverted by Lulu 3 minutes later [2]). Soon after (19 April 2005) he became interested in the Pope Benedict XVI article, making many edits (see user contributions). He soon embroiled himself in the style wars (see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig and [3]).

He then made a number of personal attacks against me, accusing me of vandalism [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. This caused User:Linuxbreak to try to help [10], but as you will have seen, many of those diffs are after Linuxbreak's attempted intervention.

He has also disrupted WP trying to prove a point by adding prefixes where previously there are none (bear in mind that Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters opposes prefixes in all circumstance when reading these links), see: [11], [12]. After the vote on prefixed styles, which even using User:Whig's weird voting method, only showed 53% support for Lulu's preferred option (ie clearly no consensus for change - or, indeed, any consensus whatsoever), he, knowing full well as it had been pointed out to him often, started editing to enforce his views: [13].

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)/Survey on Style-Prefixed Honorary Titles/Ratification) and Talk:Kim Jong-il

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is new to WP (except for his small number of edits before April 2005), and therefore is unused to WP ways - in particular about consensus-building and not being disruptive. However, at present, he has wasted a lot of time by very many users - and has made very few good constructive edits to articles in the meantime.

I ask him to leave this style issue alone for a while, and try contributing constructively in other (maybe less controversial) areas, jguk

This is a charming little rant by Jguk. Maybe I'll copy it to my user page, since it is a relatively good summary of my WP activity since I created a named account (I did a little editing before that, by IP address, but not a large amount).

Obviously, the rant is not in any meaningful sense an RfC since there is no single (nor even several) particular issues it raises; rather, the rant amounts to "Jguk doesn't like Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters" — which is his right, of course.

FWIW, about the first thing that got me involved in more active WP editing was that as soon as I made one comment against the use of styles (I think on the B16 talk page, but maybe it was somewhere else), Jguk added a {{VfD}} to the page David Mertz (which is about me). That VfD was completely gratuitious, and motivated only by bad faith — of course it was voted down by one delete to maybe a dozen keeps (guess who was the one delete :-)).

I do hope that this RfC acts as a palliative for Jguk's free-floating anger (which seems to stem from his horror at the thought the pope might not be addresses with proper deference, I think). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:15, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia is run by consensus
2. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (or indeed for any other reason)
3. No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

See the pages listed above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. jguk 19:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
2. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:22, 2005 May 16 (UTC) Not only is Lulu a PITA, he's ugly too! Just take a look at User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters.

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

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