Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MPF

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC).

MPF (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

MPF (talk · contribs) has, over time, gotten into several conflicts over his removal of certain common names based on what some view as his own POV regarding plant common names (such as removing the common name "prickly cedar" from the Juniperus oxycedrus article and others detailed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Juniperus virginiana and threads below that). MPF has removed names as "uncommon", "incorrect" or "misleading" or has revised text of the articles to make it appear that some common names are incorrect or misleading. Other editors disagree with MPF's removal of certain common names or modification of text to indicate some are more correct than others, seeing such activity as POV-pushing. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of concern

This issue has been raised several times at WikiProject Plants and plant-related articles (here, here, here, and currently here and here). Every time, consensus tends to drift toward including all widely used common names without POV regarding their "correctness". The concern arises here when MPF ignores consensus time and time again and continues pushing his POV that some common names shouldn't be included because they're misleading (e.g. his logic is that because the common name "eastern red cedar" referring to Juniperus virginiana indicates that it is a cedar and not a juniper, which is why he prefers "eastern juniper" as the common name in the text: diff, and again. This pattern is a continuation of past edits that still ignore consensus that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is descriptive not prescriptive.

Other edits by MPF of a similar style include: removal of "uncommon names" diff, a bit murky here diff, pushing one name as more accurate than another diff, noting that certain common names should "be avoided" diff, and a "misspelled" edit that removed one common name from the lead and pushed a POV that such name shouldn't be used diff. This is just a sample of such edits. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPF has, on numerous occasions, attempted to use Wikipedia as a platform to further an agenda of promoting certain common names for plants and suppressing others, even when the latter are well-established in certain regions or contexts. This has resulted in numerous time-consuming conflicts with other editors, particularly when one name is prevalent in North America and another in the U.K. For examples see the edit histories and particularly the discussion pages for Verbascum thapsus (common mullein), Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom), Cedar and Cedar (disambiguation) (numerous common names), Juniperus bermudiana (Bermuda cedar), Juniperus virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar), Libocedrus (New Zealand cedar). In some cases MPF has entirely removed easily verifiable common names from the article; for example see Vinca minor (myrtle, creeping myrtle) and Juniperus oxycedrus (Prickly Cedar). This pattern of editing goes against the consensus reached by virtually all other botanical editors, who have agreed that all common names that are relatively well-known should be included in articles, and particularly in instances where there are regional differences in the common names used for the same species (e.g., Scotch Broom vs. Broom, Greater Mullein vs. Common Mullein, Eastern Red Cedar vs. Eastern Juniper), without identifying any particular name as "correct" or "incorrect". Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage. I will qualify my comments somewhat to say that (1) MPF is otherwise a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, which makes his single-mindedness on this one issue all the more frustrating; and (2) MPF will usually acquiesce to neutrally worded edits, but only after much discussion, argument, reverting, and even edit wars. This is a problem as it wastes the time of multiple editors to produce even minimal NPOV results, has caused ill feeling between MPF and several other editors, and intimidates or discourages new editors who may attempt to contribute to articles (this was certainly true when I was new to Wikipedia, and tried editing articles that MPF had worked on). MrDarwin (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

I would like to see an acknowledgement from MPF that consenus concerning common names in articles has been reached and that he will try to control his POV/bias regarding which common names are "correct". I'd also like to see an acknowledgement of an understanding of the guidelines regarding leads and what they should contain and what shouldn't be removed. I honestly believe that MPF currently sees his edits as improving the accuracy of Wikipedia in all good faith, but I'd like to see a response that shows an understanding that such activity as linked above is unproductive POV-pushing. --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Rkitko ^(talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I have tried and failed to resolve disputes in the past (diff) with MPF and have added my voice to the consensus at WT:PLANTS - diff and diff.[reply]
MrDarwin (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I have tried and failed to resolve this dispute on several occasions, most recently by asking other editors for assistance and by attempting direct discussions with MPF. I posed questions on MPF's user page, where they went unanswered, and on the project talk page, where MPF responded with a personal attack rather than addressing the issues I raised.[reply]
I've been the one dealing with MPF's concern over Verbascum thapsus, concerns that never surfaced during the artyicle's run at FAC (although the article admittedly received fairly little attention), and I'm honestly still far from happy woith the resulting wording, which is at best pompous and wordy, and at worst a fairly badly-hidden PoV:"The standard English name used by authorities in its native area is [...] In North America, [...] is the usual name." vs. "Nowadays [...] is the usual name in North America, while [...] is the one used in the United Kingdom", which came after a sentence commenting on the numerous names the plant has received. I really hope MPF can at least accept consensus, because he is otherwuise a true asset to the project. Circeus (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was also involved in the same debate as Circeus regarding Verbascum thapsus and I hold the same viewpoint as above. DJLayton4 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too have come into conflict with MPF on common names before, and IMO he is interested in prescribing what common names should be used, not necessarily promoting the British usage. In one case, even after a plant Cedrus deodara had been moved to the botanic name to sidestep a dispute over the name, he still insisted on editing the article to indicate what he felt the common name should be. Imc (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've had run-ins with MPF over this as well, beginning with Acer negundo (which he insists is "misleadingly" called "boxelder"), but also in some of the other articles mentioned above. I added WP:SYN to the policies involved as well, since while he does indeed find references for the alternative names he prefers, he also stresses the authority of such sources because they are more informative or sensible than the other sources. This has come up over and over for at least the past 3 years... some months ago he seemed to have left the roject for a while after such a dispute, but eventually returned and started engaging in the same behavior (for example). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 00:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Curtis Clark (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC). As far as I remember, I was never involved directly in a dispute over a common name (I do remember commenting on Cytisus scoparius after the article had been moved to the scientific name), but I have expressed alarm in a number of venues about MPF's suppression of common names. Although I appreciate that certain common names gain "official" status in certain nations and certain circumstances, an accounting of all the common names of a plant is as important in my estimation as an accounting of its medicinal or utilitarian uses (and in many cases the two are related).[reply]

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q. MPF, how do you believe articles dealing with species that have multiple common names should best present those common names, and how would you like to see other editors present those common names? Do you believe that Wikipedia articles should attempt to promote a single common name, and discourage the use of other names, in such cases?

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

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.

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.