Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 19
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
Transmetals
Issues appear to have been resolved. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I've been trying to remove OR on the page Transmetals. Editor Mubuska was warring with an IP user. I havent been on wiki for sometime and only came back because I've been talking to friends about transformers, which made me take interest in the page. The article uses a wiki as a source, which, when you go to the wiki itself, is fan opinion and interpretation of events in the show Beast wars. He has accused me of being the other editor, ran a socket puppet investigation on me, accused my additions of being OR, and threatened to report me. I've pointed out that I'm using the episodes of the show themselves as a source, and not the wiki. I am only commenting on a) what happened or b) what was said, and used in text citations for my additions, which the other editor didnt, yet I am accused of being this other person. I kept some of his text because some of it was reliable. However, I also did general grammar fixes and the like. I even corrected one of the mistakes that were added due to my editing and the other IP editors, and he says this is proof I am using OR. As previously stated he had an investigation ran on me, and repeatedly threatens to report me. Can someone please get involved Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Odoital25 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Transmetals discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Note: the sockpuppet investigation can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Odoital25 (though it will soon be archived). — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) Glancing at the article, I agree with Odoital about the sourcing here. We cannot use the Transformers Wiki as a source, as it is user-contributed and presumable does not have any editorial oversight. On the other hand, we can use the episodes themselves as primary sources, as long as their use is limited to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source". We can certainly use them as sources for plot summaries, for example, as long as we are careful to keep to the facts and not include our own interpretations. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor)Mabuska, just a quick reminder - you are citing Odoital's refusal to follow WP:BRD, but BRD is not a Wikipedia policy. It's only one method of achieving consensus, and because it's a guideline and not a policy, you can't require editors to follow it. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
|
ORB survey of Iraq War casualties
The dispute appears to be conduct-related issues. Further, the editors don't appear to be active since the last comment by TransporterMan instructing them that this is not the appropriate place for this dispute. Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Last month, I edited one sentence in the article to remove weasel wording and promote accuracy. One peer-reviewed study exists, and was written by affiliates of a rival project. A couple of days ago, the user Eric4223 reverted my edits and has done so on at least one other occasion. I'd rather not get into a protracted revert war but I don't feel his reasons are valid, and this has been discussed on the article's talk page. I also have issues with the wording of information which exists in the Criticism section, but have not taken action. To keep this brief, it would be better to refer to my comments on the article's talk and history pages for the full picture. Users involved
The article has been reverted twice by Eric4223. I have reason to believe that he may be in some way invested in the subject; I cannot understand why else one would choose to conceal the information found in my edit, if not to further some sort of agenda.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
We've discussed it on the talk page, but I feel as though we've been at loggerheads from the outset with little room for compromise.
I'd like a consensus on the inclusion of the aforementioned information. I'd also like to know why Eric is so adamant about maintaining the removal of this information, and why he would lie about it already being included in the article. G E Enn (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ORB survey of Iraq War casualties discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk's note: Please refrain from speculating about the identity of any Wikipedia user. If you believe that an editor is using multiple logons or IP addresses to avoid Wikipedia rules, make a report at Sockpuppet investigations but not otherwise. (See WP:AGF and, to a lesser extent, WP:PRIVACY.) Such matters are conduct issues not within the scope of this noticeboard. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC) PS: I have removed those allegations from this listing; if you have made them at any place other than at WP:SPI I would strongly recommend that you remove them there as well. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Clerk's note: As I previously mentioned, this noticeboard is to resolve content disputes, not conduct disputes. Here at Wikipedia we judge edits, not editors, so a editor's motivations for editing are ordinarily irrelevant to any discussion of his or her edits. Please either restrict your discussion to why, under Wikipedia principles, policies, and guidelines, the edit should or should not be made and stop talking about one another. If the discussion does not immediately focus, and focus exclusively, upon the content issues it will be closed. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Social Security Act
No discussion on talk page (nor a talk page for that matter). Too soon for DRN. Please feel free to come back once it's it's been discussed to an impasse there |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The problem referred to is in the overview section, line 4: In this article an explanation is given as to why this bill was proposed: "The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children." When I read the part about the widows and the fatherless I could nothing but connecting it to the Bibles references to the widows and the fatherless. I instantly realized that this motif in the explanation of the bill undoubtedly was motivated from Biblical ethics. Hence, I mean that including the references in the Bible in the article will shed light on the basis for this formula. This was dismissed by Lothar von Richthofen as "biblical study," and by Jim1138 as possible "vandalism." My opinion is that most Christians in the United States will recognize this formula (widows and fatherless) and instantly knowing it has its basis in the Bible. Therefore, excluding this information from the article is like trying to hide an important aspect of American politics, religion. Of course, religion was even more important in 1935 than today. This formula does not appear accidentally, and in the United States there is not necessary to investigate such a matter. Especially Christians know that the formula has a specific background (i.e. Exod. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 24:19-21; 27:19; Job 22:9; Pss 94:6; 146:9; Jer. 7:6; 22:3; Ezek. 22:7; Zech. 7:10; Mal. 3:5) I included these references in order to shed light on this part of the bill. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
We have discussed the matter on a talk page.
By deciding which view is the correct. ChristianContributor (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Social Security Act discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
When I read the part about the widows and the fatherless I could nothing but connecting it to the Bibles references to the widows and the fatherless. IMO, that just sounds like unsubstantiated original research. It's all well and good that you connected the dots, but please, please, take your ideas to a newspaper or somewhere before we can write it in. ZZArch talk to me 08:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you guys belong to the group of strict, but fair, editors. The rules must be followed, I agree to that! I understand from you guys that one absolute rule is that references must confirm statements. In other works, this is not the sole purpose of references (or footnotes). They may have a variety of other functions, one being comparison. In other words, a lot depends on how you define the term reference or footnote. I see from TheFreeDictionary.com that one definition of reference is: “A note in a publication referring the reader to another passage or source.” According to this definition the function of confirmation is not mandatory. According to this definition the function of comparison would be included. As you probably would agree to, what I do by presenting the Biblical verses as references is to compare the text in the article to the Bible, thereby giving the reader an opportunity to establish a possible connection him-/ herself. Furthermore, the references cited are from a printed source. This means that if Wikipedia’s rules allow the function of comparison for references, then this reference is good. Have a pleasant day, and God bless your positive deeds ! User:ChristianContributor —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
|
June Jago
Not a dispute Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
I don't have an argument, but wish to inform the primary author of the page on June Jago that she was my mother's cousin, so I was able to put in her date of birth. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
99.246.136.26 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) June Jago discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
Newsvine
The article has been semi-protected. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
An anonymous editor keeps inserting the sentence: "it should also be noted that due to the extreme liberal bias of the website, conservative commentators frequently have their posts removed and deleted." I ran into this when I was patrolling the recent changes feed for vandalism. I felt that this sentence required a citation and thus reverted the edit. The anonymous editor then reinserted the sentence. Upon investigating the issue, I found that this back and forth had been going on between the anonymous editor and another editor several days prior. I do not feel comfortable reverting the edit again without getting outside advice. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
I invited the anonymous editor to discuss his/her changes on the articles talk page but the anonymous editor has yet to do anything but edit the article directly.
I'm not really involved in this dispute, I'm just trying to do the right thing as far as the WP:NOCITE policy goes. Is this claim not doubtful, doubtful but not harmful, or doubtful and harmful? -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Newsvine discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I'm unsure of what steps to take next. I gave reasons for reverting the edits by the anonymous user (not cited, not neutral, no reason for deleting things that aren't in dispute) while the changes that person made (and their reverts of my reverts) have no explanation. I added a NPOV box to the article and created a NPOV_disptue section on the article talk page, explained why I'm undoing these edits (same reason Sailing to Byzantium did), asked for the edits to stop until the dispute is resolved, and left a note on the anonymous user's Talk page requesting they work with me to resolve this on the article talk page. Yet the unexplained and problematic edits continue with no discussion. Some advice would be very welcome at this point. — Pwtenny (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Indians in Afghanistan
discussion moved to MedCab Whenaxis talk · contribs 01:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The article is currently facing multiple issues and disputes over multiple points. Most involved users acknowledge each other's positions on the dispute but the discussion is still stuck. We have all made a combined list for the issues in the article.
Users involved
JCAla acknowledges opposing positions on the content dispute, and so do I. AshLin and Darkness Shines are in complete disagreement with any suggestion I've made (removed even dispute/discuss tags from the article). Mar4d being the creator (recovered/rewrote it from a copy vio version) is lightly involved. Darkness Shines has previously tagged the article for Afd (through which it survived) claiming it to be a WP:COATRACK article, following an edit war, article protection etc, this is now disputed as a WP:COATRACK on opposite direction.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion on talk - completely stuck with contention and multiple disagreements.
You can help cool things down by mediating to resolve the issues listed above. The current form of article is filled up with so much disputes that any further additions to most areas automatically get disputed as they further complicate issues. lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Indians in Afghanistan discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Statement by JCAla
The correct title for "Alleged intelligence activity and support for insurgents" should be "Alleged intelligence activity" as they are only alleged by Pakistan. An identified majority position says there are no evidence for the "alleged intelligence activity". Leaving out the "alleged" is not impartial but rather presents an allegation which constitutes a minority position as a matter of fact. "support for insurgents" should be left out completely as the term "insurgent" with regards to Afghanistan refers to the Taliban.
The attacks carried out by the Taliban Haqqani network themselves are not disputed. Explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians they have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries.
The attacks carried out by the Taliban Haqqani network themselves are not disputed. Explicitly targeting Indian nationals and civilians they have been referred to as terrorist attacks in reliable sources. Furthermore the perpetrators are officially listed as a terrorist organization by a large number of countries.
It presents a major issue with regards to "Indians in Afghanistan" and thus a summary needs to be present in the lede.
There can be an appropriate sentence addressing the issue.
The image is not out of scope of the article and there are no other images available on "Indians in Afghanistan". JCAla (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Libertarianism
Closing as stale. Productive discussion also appears to have resumed at the article talk page. If you wish for this to be reopened, please drop a note on my talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute is regarding the inclusion in the lead of a definition of libertarianism that states: "It is the political philosophy that holds individuals own themselves and thus have property rights in external things, or any political philosophy which approximates this view." The definition comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1] which states: "Libertarianism, in the strict sense, is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things. In a looser sense, libertarianism is any view that approximates the strict view." This information, in my opinion, respects all Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As the publication it is in is a well renowned academic, peer-reviewed publication usually considered (not only in Wikipedia articles) as one of the most reliable sources. I do not argue that the definition that is currently in the lead of the article should be removed (although it is unreferenced), only that the second definition not be forcefully discarded. Users involved
User Fifelfoo has removed the definition entirely twice, in [2] and [3], but left the reference and the source of the of the definition intact, thus misquoting it. The third time User Fifelfoo solved the problem of misquoting the source by completely removing the definition along with its reference, in [4]. User Fifelfoo has removed the definition by claiming it is a copyright violation and also reported the use of the words "own themselves and have" and "property rights in external things", as being a copyright infringement ([5]). This claim was dismissed.
Yes. North8000 (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page) Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) (notified at their talk page)
Resolving the dispute
This issue has been discussed on the Libertarianism talk page at [6].
A Wikipedia admin more knowledgeable about inclusion rules should decide one of three possible solutions: 1. Only keep the current unreferenced definition in the lead. 2. Only keep the referenced definition in the lead. 3. Keep both definitions and state it is variously defined as I proposed here [7]. This solution has the advantage of pleaing all points of view, however I wonder whether it is appropriate (according to Wikipedia guidelines) to force an unreferenced definition into a lead. I cannot suggest any solution as I am a party to this dispute. However, in my opinion, discarding the referenced definition entirely to the expense of the unreferenced one is an even more inappropriate solution than keeping in both. Fsol (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Libertarianism discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
My angle/emphasis in this dispute is 80% about process and 20% about content. The "process" side is that fsol is basically warring their particular content into the lead against consensus. I've been active at the article for I think almost two years, starting when it was in open warfare. My main goal has been to bring civility and civilization to the process there. And so I am against warring this in against consensus. The "20% about content" is that FSOL is basicaly trying to state property rights as a central tenet of libertarianism in the lead. Libertarians don't even agree on this, much less make it a central tenet. Fsol's only argument for warring this into the lead is that it is sourced....basically to a particular source that states that particular viewpoint. Fifelfoo has copy vio concerns about the material. My gut feel on the way to resolve this is to first resolve the copy vio concerns one way or the other and then to put the material that fsol wants to insert into the body of the article rather than the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC) (Comment from uninvolved editor) First, I would like to mention that this noticeboard is not actually a place where admins make/enforce decisions. Anyone can comment on these disputes; this is just a place to get opinions from uninvolved editors who may know a little more about the wiki processes. If you need action from an admin, you should probably go to the admin noticeboard, though I think this can probably be resolved without going that far. First, North8000, let me point out something that could be problematic in your approach; you took the right step by taking the problem to the discussion board and here instead of edit warring, but you should not revert edits just because they "go against consensus". Since we have a content dispute, we obviously don't have a consensus; ergo, consensus-related reverts are malapropos. Because the copyvio concerns are being addressed on the admin noticeboard, we can't really tackle them here. As far as the process is concerned, the main problems seem to be centered around the fact that we have essentially two or three editors, each with non-neutral points of view. (Let's face it; for a topic like "libertarianism" it's not possible for any one editor to be completely objective because every editor will have at least some opinion of the subject. The key here is to keep the article as neutral as possible.) The reason this is causing problems is because all of the involved editors are insistent on getting their own points of view in the article - this is a problem because of WP's neutrality policy. The objective here is not to provide balance by giving equal weight to two non-neutral points of view - the objective is to keep everything neutral. More to the point, the reason the process seems to have stalled is because (as far as I can tell from a quick look at the discussion on the talk page) the editors have resorted to making accusations instead of moving the discussion forward. All of you need to be more focused on discussing the content instead of discussing the editors. Instead of pointing out problems, suggest solutions. North8000, since (I'm assuming) you're the one who framed this dispute here, I'm going to suggest that you start by proposing how you think the content in question should be presented. All the other editors involved, if you don't agree with North8000's proposal, don't point out what's wrong with it but rather present a counter-proposal, explain it, and explain how it is different (not how it is "better") than the previous proposal. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
We could go into a lot of details about the source, what he actually means (as if he doesn't mean what he says) about the quality of the peer-review mechanism, etc. About what one's POV is, whether it is the same or different than that of others, etc. All these are interesting discussions but irrelevant ones for determining inclusion in a Wikipedia article. The only question that should be answered is: does this definition respect the guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia? The guide line does not request consensus (although it is preferable). The guidelines request: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. As this definition appears in a well known peer reviewed academic publication it respects all three. And should thus be in the article and shouldn't be removed in favour of unreferenced content. -- Fsol (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
T-ara
Closing as dispute apparently abandoned by disputants. If you wish for this to be reopened, please drop a note on my talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Naruto82 (talk · contribs) and I are disputing about whether or not T-ara's Leader timeline section should be ordered chronically or reversed. They have stated it should be ordered from latest-to-earliest because that was how it was ordered when the section was made. I have directed them to WP:STANDALONE's chronological ordering section, but they keep stating it is a "special case" when it is clearly not. Users involved
We have had one dispute in the past about T-ara's Current members section, but have since resolved it.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I have discussed about the issue on Naruto82 (talk · contribs)'s talk page but they have since started ignoring my messages.
Provide guidance on guidelines. Chikazuku (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC) T-ara discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hi Chikazuku, Naruto82. Would I be right in saying that this diff outlines the dispute you are having? It strikes me that listing the earliest date first is the usual way of doing things - I don't think I have seen latest-first on Wikipedia before. The manual of style section that Chikazuku linked to also says that earliest-first should be preferred. Having said that, there is a way you can compromise here: by making the table sortable. How about changing the table using the instructions here so that it can be sorted either way? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points
Closing this, as KimvdLinde has announced her intention to retire from Wikipedia. Also, I think it would be a very good idea to wait for the result of the ArbCom capitalization case before debating this further. The results should be announced before the end of the month. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
SMcCandlish has been trying to gain consensus to update the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) with clearer language at WP:MOS#Animals, plants, and other organisms, with the primary intent of stopping the rampant, willy-nilly capitalization of the names of organisms all over Wikipedia (Pallas's Cat, Ball Python, Neon Tetra, Mountain Oak, etc.), using wording that, in his view, represents the facts and the consensus on the matter, and allegedly with the secondary goal of reducing the amount and heat of the seven years of debate about the insistence of WP:WikiProject Birds (WP:BIRDS) on capitalization of the common names of bird species, the debate about which is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. His stated position, and that of some others in the debate, is that in order to satisfy both of these goals, the MOS must (not should, but must, for policy reasons) indicate that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial (or does not have Wikipedia-wide consensus, or whatever wording), since this is in fact the case, and it isn't MOS's job to arbitrate such a dispute. SMcCandlish feels that Kimvdlinde has been intentionally engaging in a tendentious campaign of obstructionist disruption, based on incorrect negative assumptions, to derail the proposal, principally through the WP:IDHT tactic. KimvdLinde has engaged in the debate about this, and suspects these MOS changes to be an attack upon WP:BIRDS, rather than an attempt to deal with the wider problems SMcCandlish says he is actually more concerned about, much less something that could possibly help rather than hurt WP:BIRDS. She further believes that there is no consensus for MOS to state that the WP:BIRDS practice is controversial on Wikipedia (though she concedes that it is). She feels that MOS has no choice but to simply endorse The WP:BIRDS practice as the status quo. She also has stated a belief that SMcCandlish has "no good faith" in the matter, and that his real motives for the changes at MOS are simply to attack WP:BIRDS, despite his claims otherwise to be working for compromise (belied by his strong criticism of the project's capitalization and its alleged behavior about its capitalization preference, and his repeated statements that he thinks the capitalization practice is not appropriate on Wikipedia, and that he may continue to oppose it.) She detects, beyond this particular debate, a pattern of opposition, by various editors, to the WP:BIRDS capitalization scheme, which she characterizes as "capitalization warriors" meddling with and attacking the project; she thinks they do not understand the real-world bird naming conventions and are obsessing over typographical consistency. SMcCandlish submitted this DRN, and is in good faith attempting to describe both sides' positions and actions accurately, including as perceived by each other, but expects that KimvdLinde will wish to make changes to reflect her views of the facts more accurately. Users involved
Discussions between the users have invariably turned into circular arguments, with considerable rancor.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Both parties have had extensive talk page discussions between each other and among other interested parties on both sides at WT:MOS and to a lesser extent at WT:BIRDS, and again (one-on-one) at WP:AN/I. SMcCandlish has also tried talking with fellow project members of KimvdLinde's, like Sabine's Sunbird, a WT:BIRDS regular, to find more common ground. KimvdLinde tried leaving the debate for several days.
Perhaps broker a more civil discussion, with more structure so that positions can be presented and analyzed in a less noisy and circular fashion, with the possibility of better mutual understanding, less animosity, and a common goal of finding a resolution to the dispute. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 10:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I disagree with the factuality of a number of these statements. Should I summarize those disagreements, or does something moderatorial need to occur first (I'm unfamiliar with process here). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 12:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm just going to proceed. In looking at other cases here, that seems to be the way to go about it. I will number the points for easy reference. This will be long, because there's something problematic about almost everything Kim says above.
The only good news to report in my review of Kim's lopsided claims is that it looks like we may have arrived at compromise wording on this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance. That will essentially moot this dispute resolution, though I'm happy to continue the discussion. While I've been refuting aspects of Kim's claims that I disagreed with, I've essentially raised my own grievances in the process and don't need a new section for doing so. I think that continued discussion would focus on a small number of the claims/refutations. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
(Break)Thank you both for your very detailed responses. It makes it easier to see all the issues with this dispute, thus, making it easier to resolve them. Firstly, I would consult WP:CRITERIA for deciding an article title and WP:AT#Treatment of alternative names for individual articles in disrepute. However, as an entire guideline to be adjusted, instead of just making your own rule up without a clear consensus from the community,I'd suggest making a well-written policy proposal on the village pump and putting up a notice at WP:CENT for the wider-community to vote on your proposed amendment. Thanks, Whenaxis talk · contribs 00:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Because the project won't compromise, I predict that the matter will eventually go to a broader RfC/CD discussion than has ever been held on the matter before (it's been raised without RfC and CD tags at VPP and WT:MOS before many times), and/or even be an ArbCom case, then the community (or ArbCom) will insist per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that the project stop uppercasing, and a small number of bird editors will walk, mostly temporarily, some permanently (and this will be sad, because they're knowledgeable and active), all because a handful of the members of the project who falsely claim to speak for everyone working on bird articles refuse to compromise, or even acknowledge that others' viewpoints could be reasonable. In the interim, people will actually implement what I propose, below, and the walk-out editors will mostly come back, while other editors will actually feel more comfortable contributing to bird articles without fear of being harangued into obeying some capitalization rule no one but bird specialists knows and understands. Update: The latest proposal could actually forestall much of this. 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I already outlined the obvious "win-win" solution
If you like, I can draft such an RfC and make sure it is neutrally worded. In turn, I would like the participants here to assemble a list of links to past discussion on the issue, so that we can make a definitive list that RfC contributors can refer to. I see that there is a list of discussions at WP:BIRD already, but are there others as well? (Also, Kim, would you be willing to wait for the outcome of such an RfC before making any decisions about retiring? It would be a shame to lose you.) Let me know what you think about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I am out of here. I already announced I would retire, and the ongoing bullshitting just makes it a better and better decision. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
User:Danjel and school AfDs
Closing as primarily a conduct dispute. Per the listing editor, "This is not a content dispute, it's a dispute about whether it's alright to call other users trolls and flat-out wrong." (Emphasis added.) DRN is, by its guidelines, only for content disputes. For conduct disputes use WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:ARB. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User has continually affirmed the notability of primary schools. That would be perfectly fine...except that he has repeatedly called users who disagree with him "incompetent", "flat-out wrong" and "trolls". This when Purplebackpack89 cites WP:COMMONOUTCOMES vis-a-vis schools; a perfectly acceptable policy that has been reaffirmed numerous times. Danjel also suggested Purplebackpack89 follow BEFORE...on articles he didn't even AfD. Danjel would also bring up Purplebackpack89's stances on deletion in discussions where his stance was tangential (for example here and elsewhere; note that the so-called "non-existent" consensus is actually what is said at COMMONOUTCOMES); virtually always to mock or berate them.
Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Purplebackpack89 has repeatedly asked Danjel to tone it down. Danjel's general response was to rollback Purplebackpack89's edits. Others have also asked him to tone it down as well; he has ignored them
Inform Danjel of relevant policy; and perhaps ask him to step away from the topic (or even from Wikipedia in general) until he has a cooler head Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC) User:Danjel and school AfDs discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
User:Purplebackpack89 is being faux-sensitive about his being called on misrepresenting consensus regarding notability of primary schools (i.e., that primary schools are "inherently non-notable" [8], which differs greatly from WP:OUTCOMES, as he points out, which states that "Schools that don't meet the [notability] standard typically get merged or redirected..." emph. added) and the fact that I vote against his moves to delete those articles at AfD. This is borderline harassment on his part. In any case, this is not a content dispute so this is the wrong forum. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Web Sheriff
Continue listening to each other on the talk page and ensure to discuss reasons why you reverted changes or added sources. Whenaxis talk · contribs 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There has been a longstanding issue with this tone of this article, as can be seen on the article talk page and archives. In general the concern brought forth is that the article provides too much coverage of individual examples of clients, leading to a promotional tone. WP:ADVERT, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE have been cited as examples. The counterargument is that enough examples have been removed from the article, and further reductions are too damaging. Users involved
Only recent participants on the talk page are listed in this post, since the discussion has gone on for several months. There seems to be a significant ownership issue on the part of Agadant, who has contributed much of the content to the article but strongly resists changes by other editors. Several editors have left the discussion in frustration over the last few months. The discussion has become particularly heated today, making it obvious that some sort of intervention is needed.
Resolving the dispute
This has been discussed extensively on the article talk page through dozens of discussion sections. In addition, I have discussed the matter with the article owner on their user talk page (as have others), and other editors have started a couple of noticeboard discussions (NPOV/N, COIN) related to the matter. The noticeboard discussions have focused on possible COI issues, which I do not really view as terribly relevant. I am convinced Agadant is editing without any COI in this matter, but that the issue is better defined as a long running content dispute.
I need advice on the most appropriate forum to get additional discussion on this topic, with the goal resolving the apparent impasse that has existed on the talk page for many months. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Web Sheriff discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Section break
Agadant's suggestion that an articles encyclopedic quality cannot be improved by the removal of dubious sources and eventual deletion of related content which cannot be attributed to reliable sources directly contradicts the policy WP:UNSOURCED. aprock (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Section break 2Ok we can try interpreting policy and see what sources are "problematic" and which ones are not. Let's start with the list on the talk page. aprock, can you provide some ideas why they are problematic and saying that they are blogs or self-published is not sufficient enough (apparently) and Agadant, can you provide some ideas why they should be kept. Whenaxis talk · contribs 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
List of thrash metal bands
Closing as stale. Feel free to post back here if the dispute flares up again. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
In the spirit of standards and improving the encyclopaedia, all articles should follow policy and guidelines, with exceptions if needed. The issue of the article is the inclusion of entries where the citation mentions "thrash", but not "thrash metal". Our article "thrash" explains that it can mean any number of 5 genres of music. This is a clear cut case of inclusion into the article:
The dispute is that I am trying to maintain a standard, while other editors refuse to provide proper citations for inclusion into this particular article. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
Discussed here:
I need more opinions which can create a consensus on this matter, as the edit summary [14] is contradictory to our Policies & Guidelines Curb Chain (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC) List of thrash metal bands discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I'm following this discussion with some interest, not for the mentioned list, but for usage in general on metal bands and albums (and not focused on thrash only).
Ok, so what I'm seeing from the discussions so far is that "thrash" is usually used to refer to thrash metal, but not always (as in this link that 3family6 provided on the talk page). Of course, we don't want there to be any ambiguity in the inclusion criteria, otherwise bands who are not actually thrash metal may creep onto the list. I'm wondering, though, if there isn't a way for us to reliably tell if references are referring to thrash metal even if they only say "thrash". Can anyone think of a fail-safe way of telling the difference between when "thrash" refers to thrash metal, and when it refers to, say, hardcore? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Closed due to lack of discussion on a talk page. I suggest taking this to WikiProject Television Stations to find a consensus among WikiProject participants. If discussions there stall, then feel free to post back here again, or alternatively you could file an RfC. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
We do not need a list of syndicated shows for every TV station website! This is irrevelant! Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Remove all the syndicated shows on every TV station article. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Looks to me as if ACMEWikiNet is edit warring both against the editors mentioned above and against common sense: no matter how much you demand it, programming is relevant in an article about a television station. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello everyone - I've been looking around some of the pages involved in this dispute, but I can't find any discussion about it on a talk page. Could any of you point me to where you have already discussed this dispute? As you can see at the top of this page, the dispute resolution noticeboard "is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page"; so, if there is no discussion, this thread should probably be closed. (I suggest WikiProject Television as a good place to hold discussion on this topic if this is the case.) All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Sinai and Palestine Campaign template dispute
This seems to have been settled in the discussion at WikiProject Military history; however, if RoslynSKP wishes to pursue this further I recommend taking it to an RfC. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a dispute regarding what engagements should be included in this template. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
After numerous attempts to edit the template according to both editors views of the campaign discussion has continued on the talk page where no resolution is within sight. During this process Jim Sweeney created a stub article Battle of Jaffa (1917). This stub article is substantially based on coverage of the engagement in the Battle of Jerusalem (1917) article and really needs to be deleted.
As both editors hold their views firmly there appears to be no way forward, as things stand. It was suggested by the editor who put a seven day hold on the template to apply to the dispute resolution noticeboard but I'm not sure how it works, nor what to expect. Rskp (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Sinai and Palestine Campaign template disputeDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I notice that on the template talk page Nick-D said that these issues have been cropping up on several different articles. Could anyone give us an idea of the other articles that are involved? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Subsequently Jim Sweeney substituted Australian and New Zealand Mounted Division which is the official name of the division and again went through a number of articles and changed the division's name. After a second long discussion on MILHIST talk page the consensus was that the Anzac Mounted Division was the appropriate name. At which point I went through and changed the division's name back to Anzac Mounted Division in a number of articles. Then I sought to move the division's article back to Anzac Mounted Division. When the MILHIST talk page didn't succeed for a second time, Jim Sweeney apparently took the argument to WP:Australia, which I thought a parochial approach as New Zealand is also involved and the main MILHIST talk page was the appropriate place to air the problem. I don't know what discussion took place there as I had had enough. --Rskp (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Jaffa disputeJim Sweeney has misrepresented the amount of copying that he has added to the Jaffa battle article from the Jerusalem article stating: "The information in Jaffa that is covered in Jerusalem is the background before the battle" and "The only part of Jerusalem that mentions Jaffa in in the aftermath, as it happened 11 days after the capture of the city, in a different place 40 miles away. As its part of the aftermath its covered in two sentences". [18]. A comparison of the two articles Battle of Jaffa (1917) and Battle of Jerusalem (1917) sub headings 3.3 24 November: First attack across the Nahr el Auja and more particularly 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa will shows, that of the 17 sources quoted in the Battle of Jaffa article, only three which are at the end of the article, are not mentioned in the four paragraphs of indepth description of the Jaffa battle in the 4.2 Second attack across the Nahr el Auja – Battle of Jaffa subsection of the Battle of Jerusalem article. Because the Battle of Jaffa (1917) article is completely copied from an already existing article, except for two lengthy quotes from the web sites in the Aftermath section, it should be deleted, not only from the campaign template but from Wikipedia.--Rskp (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Mormons
Bilbobag seems to have accepted the advice given below, so I'm closing this as resolved. If anyone has further questions, I'll be happy to answer them on my talk page. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The information I've added is factual, objective and respectful. The article states that the Book of Mormon is based upon the Bible. The information I've added identifies contradictions to that statement. The information cites verifiable sources as defined by wikipedia (see Below). While of a differing point of view, the added material immediately follows the section Culture and Practices, and discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion. I have exchanged comments on the talk page of Mormons Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Have discussed on the Talk page. I have also explained my reason for posting when I added comments
While of a differing point of view, the material I've added to this page discusses factual differences between two written texts, making it therefore appropriate. I have modified language to ensure neutrality, respect and objectivity. While all readers may not agree with the added section, it is none-the-less a factual comparison of two texts, and challenges statements made on this page. My additions have been removed 4 times within 48 hours. It appears that censorship is being practiced, and no differong points of view are "allowed" on this page. Would welcome a third party opinion. Bilbobag (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Mormons discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
My name was mentioned so I suppose I'll comment here. My main problem with the edit in question is that (in my opinion) it doesn't belong in a general article about Mormons. The article's focus is mainly on the Mormons as a people: their history, their unique culture, some of their unique practices and beliefs, etc. The edit, however seemed to be concerned mainly with pointing out doctrinal inconsistencies between the Book of Mormon and the Bible, effectively using the article as a coat rack for an anti-Book of Mormon screed. Also, as other editors have pointed out, there seem to be copyright problems with the source, which appears to be self-published. I personally don't see the discussion as needing a formal dispute resolution quite yet. The discussion on the talk page isn't even a day old. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Bilbobag (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Bilbobag, sorry, but we can't include your material in Wikipedia as it is. Regardless of whether it is "for" or "against" Mormons, it breaks a number of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines:
I'm sorry that you have experienced difficulties in getting your edits accepted to the Mormons article, but I think that if you accept the points above then you will experience a lot less frustration in your editing. Some further questions you might want to ask yourself in determining what material may be suitable are "Who are the major mainstream academic scholars that have contributed to discussions on the Book of Mormon?", "Are their arguments already covered in any Wikipedia articles?", and "How can I edit the relevant Wikipedia articles to better reflect the views on the Book of Mormon present in the academic literature?" Let me know if you need any clarification on any of this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Cahokia
Closing as stale. If any more problems come up, feel free to post back here again. Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
There is a dispute and ensuing edit war over the date style. This is an issue that has been resolved along time ago and wp:era is clear. In this case, the original date style is BC/AD. It was changed without a valid reason and without a consensus. It was recently changed back. Since that point, there seems to be a back-and-forth going on. This includes a 3 edit violation by Heironymous Rowe. This user states it should remain BCE/CE because it has be "stable for 4 years." wp:era does not list being "stable" as a valid reason. In fact, this would reward, and thereby encourage, users who "get away' with improper edits. The rules are clear: all date style should remain unchanged from their original--regardless of which style--unless a valid reason is given (other than preference) and a consensus for that reason is achieved. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Primus128 (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Cahokia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The creater of this report is edit warring to change the date styles on two articles which had their styles changed years ago and a stable style has emerged which is different from the actual used in the very first edits for the article. I have suggested the user wait a few days and let other regular editors of these pages, which this editor is not, chime in and an an actual written consensus emerge. The user want his way now. I'm not sure why they had to bring this here, seems premature and WP:BATTLEy to me. Heiro 05:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Since no one has edited this discussion for several days, the OP has not edited at all since their last post here, and the discussions at the two article pages seems to be over as well, what do we do with this? Is there a process for closing it or archiving it? I've never really been involved in a thread at this board before so am unclear on what its processes are. Thanks. Heiro 01:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Santorum vs santorum
Closed as already under discussion in another forum. The dispute resolution noticeboard can't issue binding decisions on content, and the likely outcome of a thread here would be "take it to an RfC", only that has already happened multiple times. If you want an uninvolved admin to close the present RfC, the correct place for that is the administrators' noticeboard. If disputes keep recurring, consider taking this to the mediation committee, and if all other avenues have been exhausted you could consider the arbitration committee. Best regards, Mr. Stradivarius (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
The dispute is about whether to Keep as Separate the article "Campaign for "santorum" neologism" or to Merge it, either into "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality" or into "Dan Savage". There are two straw polls going on, respectively here and here. Supporters of either "Merge" proposal invoke WP:BLP and dispute independent notability. Opponents of the "Merge" proposals invoke independent notability. The underlying issue clearly stirs passion among Wikipedia users and continuously creates controversies. In the recent past, there have been numerous Requests to Delete one of the subject articles ("Campaign for "santorum" neologism") -which have all been rejected- and, around the middle of 2011, one quite long dispute about the same issue, i.e. whether to Merge or not. The decision on the latter RfC was to "Keep as a separate article", though several "serious concerns" were expressed by the deciding Admin. It was also decided, in this context, to change the article's title from "Santorum (neologism)" to "Santorum Google problem" (subsequently changed again to its current title "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism"). The Admin taking the decision, acknowledging the seriousness of the subject and the importance of the Wikipedia issues involved, noted, "We should not count votes; rather we should weigh the force of reason." Users involved
The above are among the Wiki users who have actively participated in a discussion, straw poll or RfC. There may be more but I kept it at the maximum of twenty for the purpose of this Dispute Resolution. I'd suggest we do not allow the discussions to spill here. Instead, I'd ask the Admins to look into the issue and give the matter closure.
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
The necessary steps have already been initiated by other Wikipedia users, e.g. discussions, RfC, straw polls, etc.
It is evident that, despite its many reincarnations, the issue is not resolved in the minds of most participants, since it keeps coming up for resolution. Therefore, a clear decision must be provided, with strong justification, in order for this issue to be, at last, resolved and stop it from re-surfacing time and again. The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Santorum vs santorum discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|