Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Brya

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: 09:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC).

---

• Brya (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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

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.

In adition to his editing practice, Bry 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 bound by them in his editing) that is unaccpetable for a Wikipedian. Aditionally, despite repeatedlyclashing with WP:TOL and WP:PLANTSmembers, he has posted on these projects' talk pages less than ten times combined.

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.)

1. History for APG II System (note reverts)
2. Ghillean Prance: Brya remove ISBN and turn header into bolded text numerous times: [1], [2], [3]. Practically the entire page history is made of attempts by User:MPF to conform to the MoS and Brya reverting him.
3. Loranthaceae: Brya makes POV edits to taxobox and remove a list of genus without proper justification: [4]. the next days are a series of revert between him and MPF.
4. Botanical name 2/3 of the history is Brya and MPF slowly revert warring. Typical example: [5], where brya revert without explanation to a cersion without links to the plant articles and using non-standard names.
5. Leitneriales: After MPF and user:Greatgavini adds pertinent details, brya revert with the cryptic "restore" summary he loves. Short edit war ensues. When redirect to corkwood after asserting that the page contains no information of itsown, he reverts with arguments that have nothing to do with the merge.
6. 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.
7. Misodendraceae: Both brya and MPF repeatedly revert. Brys'a last revert has "rv violation of Manual of Style", while he is clearly vilating it himself by removing the header formating.
8. Family (biology): MPF makes a minor copyedit, brya reverts.
9. Coniferae (now a redirect): MPF copyedits for italics and minor stuff, a very short revert war ensue until I redirect to pinophyta
10. 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 revert with that lovely little "Restore" edit summary of his.

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)

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. User:SB_Johnny
2. User:Circeus

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.

{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:

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.

{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:

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.