Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Inter-Services Intelligence

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The ISI's aid to and creation of terrorist and religious extremist groups is well documented.[1] The ISI have close ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba who carried out the attacks in Mumbai in 2008.[2] Pakistan denies all such claims.[3][4][5] The ISI have also given aid to Hizbul Mujahideen.[6] The ISI has a long history of supporting groups operating in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir which fight against Indian interests.[7][8] Pakistan claims to give them moral support only.[7]The ISI also helped with the founding of the group Jaish-e-Mohammed.[9] The ISI also founded Al-Badr Mujahideen who were involved in the genocides in Bangladesh in the 1970s.[10]

I added this, it was removed. I want to put it back.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

The content was reverted out and in the ensuing discussion on the talk page it has been claimed the text has NPOV problems. I do not see any. An RFC was tried but no interest has been shown. I posted on the NPOV board and agin, no interest has been shown. So I guess I have to ry here now.

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Inter-Services Intelligence}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page, RFC posted on NPOV board.

  • How do you think we can help?

Some extra input is needed.

Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Inter-Services Intelligence discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

It will be extremely hard for us to offer any opinions, as the section you have referred to are referenced to books. Are you able to link to online versions of these books, alternatively scan the relevant pages and send them to my email address? cro0016@gmail.com. Thanks, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[1][2][3][4] Links to online versions of the books in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the RfC discussion, one of the issues seems to be whether Wikipedia can describe ISI's support for Kashmiri "pro-freedom groups" or "separatists" (Mar4d) as "terrorist and religious extremist groups" (Darkness Shines). Users are pointing to WP:TERRORIST and WP:OR on either side. Shrigley (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
When a nation state founds & supports groups for use in a proxy war then they are far from "freedom fighters" I also toned down the text so the groups in question are no longer called terrorists directly. However I will not misrepresent the situation, the first source used says basically what I have written and it is an accurate statement when you look into the ISI activities over the years. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but all I see with those books are references to ISI. I'm looking for passages from the book. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 19:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you unable to click on the page number referenced? If not I can copy and paste full quotes later on. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, that does work. Do we have Wikipedia articles on the authors of the first book? Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 20:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
No idea, this is one of the editors of the first book[5] He wrote the chapter being quoted from also. this is the second editor[6] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Darkness Shines, I've taken a look at the history of the article in question, and I'm somewhat confused. Do you think you could give me links to specific diffs so I can establish a bit more context here? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I did this, [7] reorganization. It was then protected from editing [8] after TG made a 3RR report on me wherein I had in fact not broken 3RR. Protection expires and I do a minor edit[9]. TG removes the lot[10]. Hope that covers it all. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: I'm closing this discussion now, as it seems to have become stale (and, looking at the edit history of the article in question, the conflicting editor seems to have dropped the issue for now). Please create a new thread (or note me on my talk page) if you would like this discussion reopened. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 80. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  2. ^ Green, M. Christian (2011). Religion and Human Rights. Chapter 21: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-973345-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  3. ^ The Independent. London http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/diplomat-denies-pakistan-role-in-mumbai-attacks-1521700.html. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  4. ^ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/01/pakistan-denies-governmen_n_147395.html
  5. ^ King, Laura (2009-01-07). "Pakistan denies official involvement in Mumbai attacks". Los Angeles Times.
  6. ^ Sisk, Timothy D. (2008). International mediation in civil wars: bargaining with bullets. Routledge. p. 172. ISBN 978-0415477055.
  7. ^ a b Martin, Gus (2009). Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues. Sage. p. 189. ISBN 978-1412970594.
  8. ^ Palmer, Monte (2007). At the Heart of Terror: Islam, Jihadists, and America's War on Terrorism. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 196. ISBN 978-0742536036.
  9. ^ Wilson, John (2005). Terrorism in Southeast Asia: implications for South Asia Countering the financing of terrorism. Pearson. p. 84. ISBN 978-8129709981.
  10. ^ Schmid, Alex (2011). The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research. Routledge. p. 600. ISBN 978-0-415-41157-8.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Neoclassicism

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Right. So the Neoclassicism article's a bit of a mess. I go in and make some bold edits, and fair enough, some of them get revert. I provided explanations for those edits (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neoclassicism). Apparently these explanations were insufficient. (In fact, given that it was the removal of generally unsourced and unreliable information, I feel they were sufficient.) However, there's one thing that really concerns me: in the second para, the final sentence has a cite. That cite is (a) unreliable and (b) does not back up the claim made in the article (for details, see my edit on the talk page). Now, at this point I can't go and edit the article: 3RR etc. However I do not feel comfortable leaving such a glaring error, so I have come here.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

I have informed all but Modernist, who is unreachable. (uneditable talk page, no email possible.)

I've left a message on Modernist's talk page, it's currently semi-protected. -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Neoclassicism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have discussed this issue on the talk page extensively.

  • How do you think we can help?

By providing a third party who can actually read the source given and verify it is (a) unreliable and (b) doesn't back the claim made.

203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Neoclassicism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
  • The main issue for me is the edit warring (went far beyond 3RR) by the IP and the lack of civility on his/her part as seen in the discussion and in the edit summaries. I wasn't so concerned with the changes, however much of it concerns the IP's claim that he/she is correct in all the edits and blanking whole sections based only on that claim. No alternate sources have been provided as of yet. I don't believe WP:BURDEN applies as this is not libelous material, it involves a great deal of text being removed unilaterally, and the edits are based on claims that may or may not be correct in and of themselves. Yes, the editor in question was WP:BOLD but then immediately began edit warring and being uncivil, giving other editors no chance to respond at all. freshacconci talktalk 15:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I really am pretty committed to resolving the particular issue mentioned above here; the other issues I can take or leave, but the use of a source which doesn't say what is claimed is clearly very problematic. And I (obviously) disagree on interpretation of burden; libellous doesn't matter, the burden is on the editor adding or reverting, and alternate sources are not needful if there's no sources to begin with. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add there was no indication that other editors wished to find sources, or actually wanted to defend the claims made. If there had been, I would have been perfectly happy to hold off until someone could get a book and check things, or alternately I'd've been more than happy to look stuff up. The only reason given was that I had insufficient reasons, which was (a) false, and (b) contrary to the spirit of burden. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted one edit, as the IP's other edits had also been reverted. The IP has clearly ignored the discussion and continued to make controversial edits, and has also been making personal attacks and been incivil in general. [11], [12]. Suggest a "cool down" block. As for the content part, I have no idea about what is correct and incorrect. PaoloNapolitano 16:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. You'll note that I haven't edited the article since, have no intention of editing the article without consensus, and that I have in fact specifically noted that I erred in making at least one edit. Further, I have in fact resolved at least two long standing issues with the article on the Death of Marat, especially given I responded constructively to Modernists' desire for better references. I have specifically brought a dispute on content to this resolution page, in the hopes that the dispute can be resolved, given that clearly nothing useful was going to happen based on the Talk page. A cool-down block would be unreasonable and I think violates good faith in the circumstances, given I have attempted, not always successful, to work within the system to resolve the issue. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I welcomed the editor on the IP's talk page; reminded the IP editor to reference his/her additions to the article and tried to help the IP editor. The IP seemed to take it very personally; and in spite of my efforts to explain the IP began edit warring despite warnings and suggestions. The IP issued various personal attacks in edit summaries. When I asked for a source in the lead of the Death of Marat article after the IP added It has been described as the first modernist painting [13] the IP added this addition which was an adequate response to my question - [14] which I wikified here: [15]. The IP would do well to realize that this project is supposed to be a collaborative and collegial enterprise...Modernist (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The way to deal with material found in an article that you do not agree with is to improve what you believe to be incorrect with a better sourced and correct inclusion. The wholesale removal of entire sections based on your opinion; without offering the correct alternative is not the way to proceed...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
It isn't `material I disagree with'; it is, as I have repeatedly said, unsourced material that the burden is on you to show is verifiable. You haven't been able to do that, at all. Particularly take the claim in the second para about martial courage. There is no source that says that; that is enough for it to be deleted as unverifiable. You then have to find a source that backs the claim up. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean me? I don't have any burden - you disagree with what's there - correct it, with sources, end of story...Modernist (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I refer to WP:BURDEN. I quote: `you may remove any material lacking a reliable source', and that the `burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material' (my emphasis). So it is up to you to find a reliable source for the claims in the article. All I have to do is show there isn't one given. Which I have, repeatedly. The fact I've gone to the length of giving persuasive arguments as to the correct position is supererogatory, not obligatory. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, you went ahead with an edit war and as I pointed out, you violated the other aspects of WP:BURDEN by not giving other editors any time to respond. WP:BURDEN is not a license to unilaterally blank sections and violate WP:3RR which you did within a very short time. As far as any attempts to communicate with others, posting a message on a talk page and then repeatedly reverting edits by three editors is again not in the spirit of, nor is it licensed by, WP:BURDEN. And frankly, whether or not your arguments are persuasive is beside the point: you are to work collaboratively and with civility which you have repeatedly failed to do in any way. freshacconci talktalk 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please ignore the conduct issues. I have no interest in rehashing them, and if it makes you feel better will ritually prostrate myself for my errors. I have no intention of editing the damn page myself. All I want here is a decision whether, under Wikipedia's policies, the final sentence in the second paragraph of the article should stand part of the article. I think it should not, because it is an unsourced claim (worse, it has a misleading reference), and because it has no source one must be provided, per WP:V, before it stands. If you disagree with that, I would be very grateful if you could tell me why you disagree. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Modernists rollbacks were out of line for a rollbacker, and arguably he violated 3RR as well. See the page history. These were not vandalism rollbacks. Finally, the part that was removed is actually unsourced. The IP is right, he just went about it in the worst possible way (Edit summary "Look, please, for the love of god, quit being a baby. please give reasoned, detailed, explanations why those edits should be reverted, and don't just say `reputable sources'" Seriously?). Until the conduct matters are resolved, there's no hope in solving the content dispute. The only compromise I can see right now is to let the unsourced bit go, and keep the sourced bit in.

An IP editing does not give you license to rollback their contributions if they're trying in good faith to improve the article. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thor Heyerdahl

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Attempt to suggest that Mr. Heyerdahl may have supported national socialism by using a citation from a book by Ragnar Kavm. The quote is rhetorical, and scathing in its inference. It has no basic elements of a neutral point of view and starts with the qualifier " Kavm (historian) has been criticized Heyerdahl for his 'lack objection to...' ". That alone is dubious, then goes on from there.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

please read entire discussion

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Thor Heyerdahl}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have called for an agreement to resolve in my last post (top)

  • How do you think we can help?

Direct me to ways to resolve this so the article can reflect a fair criticism or remove heading completely.

DixieDear (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Welsh Development Agency

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User adding unencylopedic material about a private company trying to use the same name as the subject of the article, reverting removal of the same. Seems to be violation of NPOV, COI issues (the user in question seems to be the owner of the company), non-notable, unsourced, COI aside a possible violation of BLP. Have a look at some of the content added.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Welsh Development Agency}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Previous users have tried to moderate the unencylopedic content and unsourced/POV statements made by 86.10.11.16 by raising issues on the talkpage but with no discernible effect. I've removed the disputed content this morning with an explanation in the edit summary, which was promptly reverted by 86.10.11.16; I've now left a full explanation on the talkpage asking them to comment.

  • How do you think we can help?

Some guidance would be good. It's possible I've misunderstood all these policies and guidelines. Failing that, I don't know how to stop an IP user consistently adding poor-quality unsourced content to the same article, but maybe you know some steps to help achieve this.

Fosse8 (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Welsh Development Agency discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox Dispute (pages listed below)

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

An editor is persistent on adding 'present' to the dates in the infobox for people who are currently part of the show. Whilst, on numerous occasions, I've told him to refer to the talk page to reach a consensus, he seems intent on forcing his idea, commenting once on the talk page and supposedly that's allowed him to put his 'present' idea forward. Furthermore, I've been told plenty of times that apparently his format is the one to follow, and that each page should have present because he believes that's right, I particularly don't think this is fair considering the format of not using present in the infobox has been used for ages, but this person seems to believe otherwise, and is committed not to reaching some sort of mutual agreement with other editors.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=The X Factor UK, Dancing On Ice, Strictly Come Dancing, America's Got Talent, Britain's Got Talent, The Voice (U.S.), American Idol}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I've tried to tell him to stop, starting numerous talk pages on the issue but apparently one talk page on American Idol is enough to force changes on EVERY other talent show page. Pretty sure Wikipedia has something that says every page is different, well this person believes otherwise.

  • How do you think we can help?

I want him to stop and for the infobox to be left how it was; without the use of present: it's not required, and there is no format that says it MUST be used. Each page has worked without the present for a long time, and there is no significant support for it to be added to the infobox, it just makes things look out-of-place and in a few instances, pushes things onto 2 lines and looks out-of-line.

JackJackUK (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox dispute discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Clerk Comment: I don't typically like being the first one to comment on a dispute like this, but this has already gotten WAY out of hand. JackJack, I hate to have to say it, but right now it looks like the main one who is trying to "force" an opinion is you. I've looked at the histories and talk pages, and the edit summaries of everyone involved are unacceptable. Edit summaries should address edits, not editors, and they should be cool and collected (e.g. no calling other editors "pathetic"). This has spiralled into edit wars on numerous pages, and it needs to stop now. What that means is that nobody should change the infoboxes again until this is resolved. Howabout90 and MegastarLV, the short "discussion" that occurred on one talk page was terse and roughly equivalent to a "sit down and shut up" session telling JackJack to essentially "let the adults handle it." This is not how Wikipedia works. It is now time for everyone involved to cool off and assume good faith. Just because something has been done one way doesn't mean it should always be done that way. Remember that consensus can change.

That being said, my first course of action in cases like these is to consult WP's manual of style to see if it contains anything relevant. Looking at the MOS's section on date ranges, there isn't anything that specifically addresses this issue, but looking at the first entry (about individuals still living), that seems to apply somewhat. It discourages using open-ended date ranges, but it gives the alternative option of giving only the start date. For "America's Got Talent," for instance, instead of saying "Nick Cannon (2009-present)", we could simply say "Nick Cannon (since 2009)".

To the involved editors, if you dislike the above idea, suggest alternatives. Two options I do not want to hear: "Just leave it like it is" and "Use just the dash and leave the end date blank." At the moment, for the purposes of this discussion, neither of those options is acceptable. Remember, while we are here we are going to discuss edits, not editors. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears that JackJackUK has retired: [17]. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: JackJack has come to me on numerous occasions, and I have offered informal assistance (short of adoption) whenever he's asked for it; his editing patterns have improved slowly, but he can still get taken in a bit too easily. I'm trying to get him to at least keep his account and observe how things work, and one of my friendly talk-page stalkers has also offered his advice in the situation. I can tell he's frustrated because of how MegastarLV jumped on in and started making changes against an apparent unspoken consensus (i.e., it's been that way for months and nobody's said anything), to the point I started an official talk page thread to see if we could finalize something instead of edit-warring. For the record, I agreed with some of Megastar's points, although I am not happy with how he did it (nor was the blocking admin, I gather). JackJackUK has a ways to go, but I think there is something there to work with. At the same time, I think this DR thread was unwarranted, so if there is enough here to warrant closing it, please don't let me stop it. --McDoobAU93 20:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lipton Brisk

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User 69.172.149.94 has incorrectly added flavors such as "aspertame orangeade," "artificial strawberry melon," and "artificial fruit punch." The editor also calls Brisk 100% artificial. Though Brisk does contain some artificial ingredients, it also contains natural flavors. Furthermore, the editor added the line "The two were featured in a highly pathetic television advertisement," which does not maintain a neutral point of view. I work for PepsiCo, so I do not want to make the changes myself. However, I would like the information on the page to be factual.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Lipton Brisk}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I left notes on the Lipton Brisk talk page and on user 69.172.149.94 talk page. However, I have not heard back on either.

  • How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party to correct the errors regarding artificial ingredients and flavors, and to remove the biased opinion that the advertisement is "pathetic."

Scd269 (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lipton Brisk discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-life feminism

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Users Binksternet and Roscelese continue to abuse the 1RR policy that has been imposed on all abortion related articles to ensure that the only sources used to create articles are those of their choosing and if there is an ongoing debate about said sources to remove any tags on the article that may reference the said debate. This is a problem on all abortion related articles, usually focused on pro-life groups and organizations but most recently on the Pro-life feminism article. They use their shared political views to simply revert twice what any other editor can only revert once per 24 hours and remove any reference to an ongoing debate that might attract other editors. I have not the slightest idea on how to combat such activity.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

There are other editors involved but are more often than not IP editors who do not know Wikipedia policy enough to do anything about the actions of two experienced editors.

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Pro-life feminism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have participated on lengthy discussions on the talk pages but with no success.

  • How do you think we can help?

I don't know. Dealing with biased editing comes with the territory of being a Wikipedian but I think the habitual tag removal is what is infuriating.

PeRshGo (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Indo-Pakistani War of 1971}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Talk page discussion, already linked to above.

  • How do you think we can help?

Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse.

Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The issue is weather or not the figure of 90k POW's also include the 15k civilians. It started of like this, the article had in it some 79,700 Pakistan Army soldiers and paramilitary personnel I checked the source and this number looks to have been arrived at by someone subtracting the number of civilians from the troop estimate.[18] though they their figures wrong. So we need a few opinions on, A) Are the academic publishers which state 90,000 odd troops were taken as POW's correct, in that they exclude the civilians? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this seems better for an RFC (as I suggested on the talk), however it will be a good idea to have opinions of users who have dealt with such issues related to POWs and wars. RFC would invite random users, so DRN might be a help from a different angle (hoping that we have users here that have dealt with such issues or can be invited by mediators?). --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving casualty figures total capture figures (my apologies; I misread the description and assumed we were looking for deaths, not prisoners). Let me see what I can come up with in the way of sources, and I'll try to quote a few figures here. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources (insert citations here to avoid weasel words) report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The case here is that RS state both views, what I feel is that some authors didn't do any research for finding out exact number of prisoners and their composition or didn't consider it an important issue. You will even find sources (of course RS) saying 90k POWs in one para and 93k in the next para (the same source). You may get help from Military History Wikiproject (TG suggested it at talk but we couldn't work on his suggestion), there are some senior and experienced editors who may be able to help us here. --SMS Talk 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about the late reply - I needed a brief WikiBreak, and I assumed someone else from DRN would have jumped in by now. SMS - I understand what you're saying, but if we're all agreed that these are all reliable sources, why not simply say in the article that the reliable sources present conflicting information? After all, we're not trying to draw our own conclusions here - we're just trying to present what can be verified through outside sources. If the reliable sources say different things, then it's not undue weight to present that fact in this case. Do you feel differently? If so, how? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem at all! I agree with you and in that case your suggested text ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources (source) report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") will be a good option if we are ending nowhere. Before that, the question here is the understanding of what authors we are quoting exactly mean. Can you please tell us, what do you understand by "some 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war, including 15,000 civilian men, women and children" [19]? Because the use of word including is ambiguous and all of us involved in the issue perceive it differently. --SMS Talk 18:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I, personally, don't see any ambiguity in that statement at all. To me, it clearly says that that 93,000 is inclusive of the civilians, not in addition to. The question, though, is do all of the sources present it that way? If not, we need to sort out the disparity. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The view from this side of the fence, (Indian military history) is 90K plus prisoners which excludes civilians which are over and above that. Terms of repatriation of the two were different, if I recall correctly, with civilians ec going home sooner than the Prisoners of War. I did not quite notice this argument as such. Civilians are not considered combatants under Geneva convention and hence treated differently from POWs. Of course, will bneed to locate the refs right to confirm it. AshLin (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide sources for this? If not, I think it might be better to simply give the inclusive figure. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Just for the info, another view per my original research a family of a Pak Army officer (his wife and children) who were captured after 1971 war from Dhaka told that they were released in 1974 along with military POWs. And I think if we cannot find any other sources that can tell us the exact number of civilian and military prisoners, we should add the conflicting views as already suggested by you. --SMS Talk 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree, I have not been able to find concrete figures for troops of non combatants. I do recommend we call the non combatants who were held "civil internees" rather than POW's. It is what they were called in the Hamoodur Rahman Commission. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just a quick note to everyone here: You may not have realized this, but Wikipedia's Prisoner of War article defines a POW as "civilian or combatant". In my view, that seems to suggest that we should define it the same way here. I'd recommend against changing the POW article without first discussing it on that talk page, but I'm just putting it out there for you guys to think about. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that wiki is not a reliable source non combatants may not be taken a POW's per LOAC. Hence civil internees Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
DS - I wasn't using wiki as a source, merely as a frame of reference for a definition. I wouldn't suggest using Wiki as a source, either. It's clearly not RS. However, whether we consider civilians as POWs isn't really relevant anyway; the point is we have sources - all reliable - that give conflicting counts in terms of total persons captured. What I'm saying is that we probably need to present the disparity - that is, acknowledge the fact that various sources give conflicting claims. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Sleddog116, re sourcing, just a little joke. (obviously a bad one) Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: I have another possible solution. Why don't we avoid using the term "POW" altogether? My suggestion is that we give a range (from the most conservative estimate to the most liberal), and instead of saying "members of the Pakistan Armed Forces," we simply say "Pakistanis". We could then also present the fact that sources disagree on the number of civilians included in that figure. This way, the range that we give can unequivocally include civilians and military but also use all sources accurately. That's not really OR - it's simple math. Does anyone wish to add any comment? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all of them were Pakistani. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposal #2. See this ref. Pakistan's application to the ICJ - it says over 92,000 prisoners of war and civilian internees. These figures and this wording ("civilian internee") could be used. This figure is further clarified in a breakup provided by the ICRC on page 4 - 81,888 POWs and over 10,000 civilians including 6500 women and children. The range of figures & other uncertainties could be mentioned in a footnote. AshLin (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I could support this, it is roughly along the lines of what I was thinking. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Response to First Proposal: We need to look how Geneva convention describes POWs and whether they include civilians or not? And I have already shown my consent in support of mentioning conflicting views.
Response to Proposal #2: Do you consider Pakistan's petition at ICJ a neutral source? Because this issue will be raised sometime later and I am not in favor of any content that may attract disruptive editing and more disputes. I find no other issue with this proposal, if everyone else is in agreement with this, it should be added. --SMS Talk 19:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a primary source of sorts. However, the figures are attributed to the ICRC and are in general line with those being produced ie 90 to 93K. Also, the source is much more reliable than books which bandy the figure around and provide no source for the figure. I'm the guy who normally has issues with Top Gun's sources. As long as this source is used for quoting this information only and not for any other reason, I do not think the reliability issue will be challenged by any editor in the context of strength of PsOW and civilian internees. AshLin (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest similar wording but more comprehensive. AshLin - your proposal is good except it sort of presupposes that we would use only that source. Other sources give figures, as well, though the figures are somewhat conflicting. What I would suggest is that we word it to include a range of POW/Internee figures. We give a range of totals - the low range could be the 90,000 inclusive (so, the 90,000 or so), and the high range could be exclusive (105,000; we simply give that number, which includes the 90,000 POWS + the ~15,000 civilians). We cite both with the number. So, for instance, if our high-end source says "90,000 POWS and 15,000 civilians," we simply say 105,000 (the total, and use an inclusive statement with whatever notes are needed). It sounds complicated, I know, but the final statement would probably look something like this: Between 90,000 (include citation) and 105,000(include citation) soldiers and civilians were taken captive by the Indian Army. Notice the deliberate open-endedness of that quote - that way the need for inclusiveness or exclusivity is no longer a problem. We could even add a note (or a parenthetical statement) that says that sources disagree on the exact number of civilians included in the totals - which is the truth. Any comments? Sleddog116 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I would still recommend we go for the ICRC figures which state the PW numbers with confidence and give the range within the footnote but I'll go alongwith the consensus here. AshLin (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason for my proposal, AshLin, is because there are numerous reliable sources that present conflicting figures. The ICRC source is, admittedly, probably the best one available, but it is still not the only source. It would be, I think, more apropos to include a full range. However, since the purpose of this board is to come to consensus, it's ultimately up to the consensus that the rest of you decide. So, to everyone, AshLin has stated that even though it is not the most preferable option, the option I presented above is acceptable if consensus accepts it. Do any of the other involved editors wish to comment with objections, counter-proposals, or suggestions? We've come up with some good ideas here - and thank you all for staying calm and collected - and now we need to decide how to best move the article forward. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
What if we write conflicting figures as suggested by Sleddog116 and also mention ICRC version separately, explicitly stating that ICRC registered 90,000 prisoners? --SMS Talk 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay - this page has been sitting here inactive for the last five days. For a DRN to be successful, everyone must provide input. To all the involved editors, is the above solution proposed by SMS and myself an appropriate resolution? If not, why? If no one comments within the next 48 hours or so, I will close this dispute as resolved and assume that we have accepted the above solution. If you disagree, the onus is on you to say so. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It would be so much easier if the model text to be placed were suggested. In the absence of that, I'm in agreement with the lines of what you suggest except that I consider the ICRC's figures in a nation's application to the ICJ as superior to the rest. It is the business of refugee agencies to count refugees and the business of Pakistan to know how many refugees it had. I feel this primary sources should count for more weightage than various secondary/tertiary sources for this reason. So I feel that when you mention the ICRC/ICJ ref in any context, the exact figure of 81,188 prisoners of war (excluding civilians) should be mentioned and not rounded off as SMS implied in his post above. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with AshLin in this case - we should give the round numbers for the conflicting figures, but if we give the ICRC figures separately from that, we need to use the exact figure (using an appropriate citation, of course). Sleddog116 (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree to all of the following options:
  1. Conflicting figures and ICRC figure in text:Between 90,000[source] and 105,000[source] soldiers and civilians were taken captive by the Indian Army. However ICRC registered 81,888 POWs and over 10,000 civilians including 6500 women and children.[source]
  2. Conflicting figures in the text and ICRC figure in footnotes or vice versa.
Sorry for replying a little late, didn't have time to follow the discussion regularly. --SMS Talk 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Query - Has an RfC been opened regarding this issue? Broader community input may be a good option for this dispute. Otherwise, maybe the presence of a mediator (with a case filed at the Mediation Cabal would be a good way to move this forward. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Closing Comment:Thanks for the suggestion, Lord Roem, but I think the discussion is moving forward here rather nicely (albeit somewhat slowly). Of course, I'm just one of the DRN people. The ones involved may feel differently. Given the fact that the article in question seems to have moved on (looking at the history), though, I think it's probably time to close this discussion as resolved. Most of the editors here seem to have accepted at least some version of the above proposals, so I don't think there's any sense in beating a dead horse. If anyone would like this reopened, however, I think it might be better to follow Lord Roem's suggestion and add a request for comment on the article's talk page. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Columbo, List of Columbo episodes

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

YES.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Columbo, List of Columbo episodes}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussion: see talk page of Columbo; Admin intervention: see Columbo-related post to Salvio giuliano; attempted RfC on talk page, which went ignored; attempted major edits to improve the article, which were reverted by Rangoon11 in various acts of edit warring.

  • How do you think we can help?

I stated above.

--Djathinkimacowboy 01:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Columbo, List of Columbo episodes discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
  • Comment: This seems to me a huge piece of the trouble .... it needs to be brought here for some clarification of how hot-headed we are all getting. It is from the talk page at[20]:

    I will let Ckruschke speak for themself, if they wish to still be involved in this discussion, but for me a list article which is specifically about the episodes of the series is not the right place, or a remotely logical place, for moving details such as you just attempted to. Your overwhelming focus seems to be on removing content from this article. I'm unsure why as at present the article isn't even that long. Since the current series of edits began a reasonable amount of content has already been removed. Most of those deletions I support. However I do not wish to see this article suffer death from a thousand cuts, nor to see content moved from it to less suitable places purely in order to reduce its length. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

    This needs to be seen here, because I really don't see that our efforts to make this article better and move certain excessive data is being perceived rightly. This article violates WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE in every place Rangoon wishes to preserve. I thought Wikipedia was NOT a list or a shelf for everything that has an article's subject labeled on it. For a good while several of us have been trying to communicate all this to Rangoon. May I add that Salvio was the sole respondent to the RfC I erected, and only because I personally asked him to comment. He didn't do much commenting.--Djathinkimacowboy 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is clear from the above, and from the fact that in the brief time since opening this "discussion" Djathinkimacowboy has continued to attempt to force changes to the article in question, and posted threats to me on the Talk page of the article, that this is not a serious effort at dispute resolution. In fact it looks like little more than an attack on me.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) If true (as listed above) than an RfC was attempted and failed (and it seems that this is a dispute between just two editors), maybe bringing this to the Mediation Cabal would be a good place to try to resolve this disagreement. I would be happy to mediate if both parties are interested. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
That's a kind offer, I would be happy to try it. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment From what I saw in my short time on the Talk, almost all of the ill-will was between Djathink and Rangoon (but not all - this is Wikipedia after all). Although both editors are well-meaning and obviously have a great love for the subject, their thoughts on how to improve the page are almost polar opposite - which makes gaining concensus somewhat difficult (as I can attest to). In general, Rangoon's stance was largely to only agree to minor tweaks in structure and any suggestions about "editing down" the text were usually rejected outright. Also in general, Djathink was usually open to anything but always with the ultimate goal that the size of the page needed to decrease and content that he considered trivia/minutia/nonsense needed to be deleted. These are my observations.
Therefore, I think mediation between the two would be perfect. They both have alot of energy and desire, but at this point they can't get beyond having most discussions break down into acrimony. Ckruschke (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
That's a reasonable analysis, although I do think it's worth pointing out that, despite the acrimony, the article has actually moved forward considerably during the recent series of edits ([21]).Rangoon11 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, I'll wait for the other party to comment on my offer before I open a case page. Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure what to say, but I would certainly bow to the wisdom of Lord Roem. I have a new problem, and that is Rangoon11 is now openly edit warring over that article. I have warned him about it on his talk page, that is true - just now. He then comes here and accuses me of 'threatening' him, though that is false. Rangoon has a reputation for placing false little assertions in various places. I have more than just a content dispute with him now. He's dishonest and uncooperative. Lord R., I can tell you he is only pretending he'll cooperate. He totally ignored Salvio giuliano's warnings about this. If you will agree to wait long enough and wish to see the diffs, I'll be glad to show them to you.--Djathinkimacowboy 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
...and that forward moving on the article Rangoon references is either my continued minor-level editing or his reverting everything I do. That is what Rangoon11 means. May I add, you should note how in his very first response Rangoon11 has turned this into 'an attack' on him. He enjoys using that tactic as well. No one is attcking him, even when he deserves it!--Djathinkimacowboy 04:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys, guys, cool down. Take a rest. Step away from the computer and take a warm bath. :)
I think it would be prudent for both parties to stop editing the article while we begin further discussions and mediation. Can both parties agree to this? If yes, just sign your sig below this post. Lord Roem (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

--Djathinkimacowboy Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Roem, You wouldn't mind a question, now that I have agreed? What do you mean, '...while we begin further discussions and mediation'? I wish to know exactly what it is you wish to do from this point, and I wish you to state it here.--Djathinkimacowboy 07:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This does not encourage me to suffer through mediation as you propose above, Roem. It looks a bit like an ersatz courtroom, a bit silly, and I was just reading a case that has been active since January. If you think that inspires confidence, it does not. That place is a catch-all for stuff no one really wants to fix. I see MedCab mediators can essentially step out of the woodwork and gum up the issues.--Djathinkimacowboy 07:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I do of course, have a different view on mediation. :) I have been involved with a broad array of mediation cases, from tough cases imbued with conduct issues (a Kendrick mass case) to a partisan fight over a controversial subject (Gibraltar). I have learned a method of proceeding with a case that avoids the problems that may have appeared in the Falklands case you cite above. In the end, the success of the mediation process depends on the ability of the mediator to work with both sides. This case involving a few people is nothing compared to the tougher cases the Cabal has worked through.
When I said "while we begin further discussions and mediation", that means an agreement to stop editing (except in the case of undisputed vandalism) until the mediation case is closed. Lord Roem (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Texan" versus "Texian"

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Some users are changing all usage of the words, "Texan" and "Texans" to the archaic words, "Texian" and "Texians" throughout the many articles having to do with Texas History.

Various discussions have taken place on some of the articles' Talk Pages, but a consensus is needed, but has not been forthcoming.

The wiki article entitled "Texian" begins with the words, "Texian is an archaic demonym which defined a resident" which is accurate.

While Texian can be found in some, but hardly most, documents from the Revolution and Republic days. It is virtually out of usage, now, except when quoting period articles which originally made use of the term.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread="Texan" versus "Texian"}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

There are several discussions on many pages, the one on "Texas Revolution" Talk page is the most thorough which I have seen.

  • How do you think we can help?

By agreeing with me! That is, that "Texan" is to be used without being reverted by others EXCEPT when quoting from a period document which uses the archaic term.

The only current usage of the term "Texian" seems to be limited to Supporters of Houston Dynamo soccer club, and to battle re-enactors.

cregil (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Texan" versus "Texian" discussion

Discussion 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) - Query - Has any attempt at opening a RfC been attempted? That may be a way to get more commentary from un-involved editors in discussing this dispute. Lord Roem (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I used Google Books (not a regular search-- but just books with previews in the Google Books area) and set the search criteria to find all texts using one term but not the other.
With no date restrictions, here are the results:

All time:

  • Texan = 75,500
  • Texian = 10,300
As for the argument that Texian was preferred until Texas received Statehood (claim made and footnoted with source in wiki "Texian" article) I searched with a publication date of prior to 1846. The results were:

Before 1846:

  • Texan = 10,300
  • Texian = 6,240
I again used the same searches, but limited to 1836 or before, resulting in a near dead heat:

Before 1837:

  • Texan = 833
  • Texian = 822
In no case does "Texian" have the preferred usage.
I think it just happens to be what one reads, combined with regional preferences, and a bit of presumptive legend regarding the usage which gives us each our bias.
In my private research, I will read either, and find in my notes (when not quoting directly) that I use either-- probably based on what I last read. My translation of Juan Sequin's memoirs shows he does the same-- uses them interchangeably; Smithwick and Jenkins both use "Texan" and Castaneda's translations, like Dimmick's, use "Texan" consistently.
But when editing, I follow the lead of the other modern editors: "Texan" unless quoting and if quoting, then as "Texian [sic]" to indicate it is not editor's error.
So, while either may be acceptable, editing "Texan" (the current and historically more common usage) to replace with "Texian" is not appropriate-- if we have to pick one, the choice seems clear.
"Texian" really is becoming a "only on Wikipedia" usage... and we don't want to do that.--cregil (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
As for trying an RfC-- I picked this method-- because frankly, its has been discussed to death. Also, I put a lot of effort into this attempt at consensus not to mention it is midnight-- in other words, a really bad time to suggest an alternative. --cregil (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The "discussions to death" may be a result of the same group of people fighting over which word usage to include. An RfC has the benefit of breaking that isolated block of discussion by opening up the debate to people with a fresh mind. Either way, any content dispute will end up with more discussion, but an RfC may be a better route than DRN or Mediation. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Texian should absolutely feature as a demonym on the Republic of Texas page. Aside from that, there is obviously no consensus and I'm curious why some editors feel the need to force one via gaming the Wikipedia discussions.
Further, there's no need at all for sneer sics in quotes. It's a perfectly valid English word and any need to stop overzealous editing can go in the < ! - - comments - - >. — LlywelynII 08:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not modifying what is written above, because I am instructed not to modify it. However at 21:10, February 25, 2012‎ I was invited to add to this discussion. I am exercising my right to promptly participate where I was invited. I was invited because somewhere I changed "Texan" to "Texian" in the name of consistency. That is my POV on this issue: Consistency. "Texian" is arguably right in some contexts. I don't want to do the arguing. Have some experts on the period decide, and keep it consistent.  Randall Bart   Talk  20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States debt-ceiling crisis

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Added important information and need help incorporating it to the article. The information is about credit rating outlooks and watches. The article only mentions credit ratings. Probability of default is also related to the history of outlooks and watches than just by a current rating. User jrspriggs (who has posted anti-american material related to islamic revolution) keeps removing material and citing it as inappropriate. He refuses to compromise by suggesting improvements and instead keeps removing it. Spriggs also added a section to the "Talk" portion of the webpage calling the material inappropriate and suggesting it is spam.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

User jrspriggs could be an extremist

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Undone jrspriggs' removals.

  • How do you think we can help?

Help me incorporate the information into the article as it is educational and very relevant.

HedgeFundTrader (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

United States debt-ceiling crisis discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

First off, no personal attacks. Calling Jrspriggs an "Islamic extremist", both here and at the talkpage, is a serious lapse of good faith. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Next, discuss this on the talkpage. A thread has been opened there, but less than ten minutes before you opened this DR thread - you need to give Jrspriggs and other editors time to respond. Thirdly, there appears to be no justification for the link being inserted into the article, much less at the very top. It isn't being used as a source to cite any information, and thus appears to be spam. Finally, be aware that abuse of multiple accounts is not permitted. The edit in question appears to have been added under three seperate identities - I will take a look at the contributions of all three to determine whether or not an investigation is necessary. Turns out it wasn't; HedgeFundTrader may have edited whilst not logged in, but the original editor who added the disputed content was almost certainly unrelated. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Major Major Major Major

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

On 22 January 2012, I turned the article Major Major Major Major into a redirect, saying in my edit summary, "+ redirection of page not meeting WP:N or WP:V;" diff. Four days later, 192.31.106.34 (talk · contribs) reverted the redirection, saying on the talk page, "Some joker changed this to a redir to Catch-22, citing policy but not going through the correct process of page deletion as he should have. It was exceptionally sloppy work, as it created a number of circular links he didn't bother tracking down and fixing. [...] If you're going to WP:BOLD, do it right. No excuse for laziness." I rebuffed the user's accusations, gave my rationales again, and asked their input on how to proceed. When I received no input after 3.42 weeks, I redirected the page again, pointing to my explanations on the talk page.

Nine and a half hours ago, RMc (talk · contribs) undid my redirection with no explanation. On his talk page I asked the user about this edit and his rationale behind it; he or she instead removed my inquiry without comment.

I've never encountered a user who simply disregards my inquiries and just flat-out ignores me. I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't know what to do next in this unprecedented situation. Should I disregard this most recent user's actions and take the article through AFD? Should I continue to try and engage them and prevent conflict over further edits or actions?

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Major Major Major Major}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Part of my problem is that the editors involved have made it clear they aren't interested in communicating.

  • How do you think we can help?

What is my next step so as to not aggravate the participants yet still tend to this articular chaff?

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Major Major Major Major discussion

Discussion 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) Hello Fourthords, and thanks for posting here. This doesn't look like a suitable article to bring to AfD, as your desired result is redirection, not deletion. In this case I'd simply start a merge proposal as per WP:MERGE, and get an admin to close it if that seems necessary. That would seem to be a suitably drama-fee way of finding out whether there is consensus to redirect or not. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 04:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

My only concern here is that I don't think the content at Major Major Major Major should be merged to Catch-22; wouldn't actually wanting a result of redirection in a conversation at WP:MERGE be misusing the purpose of that page? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough - in that case, you could just make it a "proposed redirect" rather than a "proposed merge". As long as you are clear about it in the discussion, I don't think there would be any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor)Depending on the notability of the article, it may require deletion. Ask, "Is this article notable?". On this criterion alone, if yes, it should not even be redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case the redirect would be useful, assuming that people can be bothered to type out all those majors. (I see that Major Major Major is already a redirect to Catch-22, but that Major Major is a disambiguation page.) And redirects don't have to be notable, they just have to be useful, as they are navigation aids. If you have a look at the deletion policy, you can see that it gives redirecting as one of the alternatives to deletion if a page is unsuitable to be an article. Also, lack of notability is not one of the reasons given at reasons for deleting redirects. However, whether an AfD discussion or a merge proposal, it seems clear to me that in the case of Major Major Major Major we need to open up the discussion to a wider pool of editors to find a consensus on what to do. Just letting the debate between Fourthords, RMc and the IP continue with no outside input is not going to be the most efficient way of dealing with this situation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Along the lines of what Strad was just saying, might this be an appropriate time for a request for comments? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Wikipedia:Verifiability

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

A long term edit war situation involving whether an "under discussion" tag should remain in place in the lead section.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

But they were all notified with broken links from this template-generated message that became obsolete when you retitled the section: – Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=At Wikipedia:Verifiability}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

There is discussion of a sort at WT:V, however, there is no discussion that can lead to a solution of this content dispute.

  • How do you think we can help?

Content dispute

NewbyG ( talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Verifiability discussion

Discussion 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) Question: Hello Newbyguesses! After a quick peek at the talk page of the page in question, it does seem there has been a long-running disagreement about the tag. Have you tried an RfC yet to get broader community imput? Lord Roem (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:lord Roem. Yes, I think 3 rfc's have been tried. If you were to examine sections suppressed from the talk page, you will see that I tried to initiate a 4th. No user was prepared to take up the discussion. Thank you for your promptitude. I have to go out now, in the RW, cheers, I will return. NewbyG ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course explaining the overall situation at this page would require a book. But on the very narrow topic, I think that when an RFC was tried there was no consensus to remove it and subsequently there have been more verbal maneuvers for a double standard, to the effect that a consensus is needed to change the status quo on the content and that a consensus is needed to keep the status quo on the tag. On a second note even a briefest look will show that the tag is appropriate.
On the more promising side, my assessment is that there are no big roadblocks to coming up with something that 75% could live with which could result in legitimately remove the tag. I have proposed this several times in the "let's take this somewhere" sections. There has been no opposition to it, but a lack of attention to resolving it. The main distractions have been a group of folks with a warrior mentality with a fixation on removing the tag without resolving it, i.e. steps towards "burying" the discussion/issue rather than resolving it. Second is folks who are working on 8 other non-contentious issues at the same time which de-focuses/gridlocks-with-complexity the effort to resolve the 1-2 contentious issues. Suggestion: come up with a resolution on the 1-2 contentious issues which 75% can live with (VERY doable) and then legitimately remove the tag. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the one who removed the tag. Reportedly I was the 8th person who tried do that. I really don't understand what you are trying to archieve. This is one of the most well established and widely accepted policies. It's critical for Wikipedia, without it there would be endless dicussions with fanatics, crackpots, delusional, isnane and misinformed people claiming they're right and the sources are wrong, with no way to resolve such disputes. There is no relevant discussion on the talk page. The only "discussion" there is about whether or not should the tag stay, without a single post about how and why should the policy change. It was perfectly appropriate to remove the tag. The fact that Elen of the Roads and S Marshall requested a checkuser on me[22] is completely ridiculous. It's plainly obvious that this is not an honest concern about the policy, but purely disruptive behavior. You and S Marshall are either trolling or unable of clear judgement. Also, both accounts (North8000 and S Marshall) should be investigated for meat/sockpuppetery.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Elen of Roads called this dispute WP:Lame. There is much wisdom in that observation. As I understand it the tag side wants it there and has kept it there for 1/2 a year or more. The no-tag side notes that the discussion tag links to the whole talk page {not to any discussion) where the policy is always under discussion and that the policy is a central pillar, so why have the tag there in perpetuity. Both sides edit war over it constantly. I don't know if neutral eyes can find some middle ground (or negotiate a stop to the lameness) but I think it a distinct service to the community, if you try. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
To be clear, I believe the dispute is WP:LAME and edit warring over it is disrupting the project to make a point. The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I appreciate all the comments here - I think I understand this dispute much better now. NewbyG, when you have the chance, if you could write a short (but focused) explaination of what your position is? I think responding to Elen's specific critique may be a good place to start. Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I think that I can agree with what Elen has said, and also most of what North has said. In particular, The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. The edit raw is lame. The lead section of the policy page will not be resolved while argument continues over what the tag is for. As for edit warring, I have edited there exactly once (1 time). There is little interest from me in following up on whether users have edit warred and disrupted, unless that is the only way to restore order.
My contention is that the tag is now not contributing to an orderly discussion. We can discuss at the page, in perpetuity, no tag is needed on the page. Either discussion happens or not. As North points out ,the fact that there are other discussions going on makes it difficult to sustain a focused discussion. (Of course, I must comment here that any cluefull examination will conclude that the efforts to *retain* the tag for all this time have resulted in inferior discussion, and disruption.) I have not participated in any previous (non-consensus) RFC’s. I am new to this page, and most dismayed at the lack of progress and lack of progress in determining a course of action in a forward direction. That’s all I can say just now, I want to reserve some energy for editing in main space.
Apologies about the broken links which went only to the first couple of users before I tidied that up. NewbyG ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC).
The tag has one purpose: to mark the section with a badge of shame until certain conditions are met, supposedly righting an egregious wrong that the community demands to be corrected by any means necessary. The fact that the tag itself now is supposed to be essentially considered part of the wording of this policy is just not right, IMHO. The "new consensus" for this tag to remain here in perpetuity seems to consist of the only two editors who continually reinsert it; even arguing now that it's the "stable version" and that there's actually consensus to keep the tag here forever. Most editors that I have seen comment on the tag either a) want it gone, or b) are ambivalent enough about it not to edit war to keep it in place for all eternity. Doc talk 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) If this is right, I think then WP:ANI might be a better place for this (if its a conduct issue of editors reverting to make a point). Lord Roem (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I participated in the big RfC, but I have been uninvolved with this page otherwise. I have scanned the talk page, but I have not had the time to read everything, so forgive me if I suggest something that has already been going on, or if I have got completely the wrong idea. First, I also agree that the edit war over the tag is WP:LAME, but as simply removing the tag has not worked we will have to try something else. I think we need to remove the tag, but to do it in exchange for something, so that everyone can be satisfied that the discussion on the matter has not simply been put on the back burner. Second, the talk page discussion is seriously lacking structure - if we are going to come up with a resolution we will need to be much more efficient than we have been.

I have the rough outline of a plan to deal with this, so please hear me out and see what you think. It would be in two stages. Stage one would be a mediation between the current participants on the talk page, where we work together to create two or three drafts of the policy to present to the community in a new RfC. If I were to mediate this, I would request that the participants agree to the removal of the tag as a condition of the mediation. Other mediators may choose to do things differently. Stage two, as you have probably guessed, would be a large-scale RfC where the community could decide on which of the presented drafts they like, if any. If I were the mediator, I would ask that the tag be reinstated for this stage, as it would be a useful advertisement for the RfC. Again, other mediators may decide that something else is appropriate.

If we bear in mind the feedback we got from the last RfC, then this process should have a good chance of finding consensus. Even if it doesn't, then it would just be a matter of rinsing and repeating until we get one. If we do it this way, then the entire process shouldn't take more than a couple of months, and I would personally be aiming to get through the mediation phase after two weeks and the RfC phase after the standard 30 days, with no drawn-out debates over closing. I'm sure this plan can be refined, and as I haven't been following the debate closely there are bound to be things that I have missed, so any pointers would be most welcome. I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I haven't been involved specifically in the dispute about the tag, but I am currently involved in content discussion on the talk page. I would also like to be involved in a mediated discussion, which I think is an excellent idea. I must say, though, that I can't agree with 90.179.235.249 's comment: "There is no relevant discussion on the talk page". On the contrary, serious GF points and proposals have been made by both critics and defenders of the current policy page content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem and Mr. S: So you are aware there was/is an essentially resolved although technically open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828#Block review please that appears to have precipitated this filing; as you know, administrative action has its limits in settling any content dispute, since that's not its purpose. I would encourage the parties to work with both of you, either on the tag thing, or even larger picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the overall situation needs a very good organizer rather than a mediator. Let me do that (wearing a second hat North8000-org that must have zero opinion on the issues) and I bet we could solve the entire issue (which 14 months has made no progress on) in a way that 75% can support and 90% can live with in 6 weeks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
From the peanut gallery, sounds like a bad idea. If you've been involved for 14 months!, one would think you would have done so by now. I rather recommend review of this principal recently enunciated by Arbcom:

Sober eyes

2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If folks don't want it, fine. But if you will take a close look at my involvement, you will see that on the main issues my thoughts and participation are very low key and sort of "in the middle". Roughly speaking, my proposals have been to merely explain the contested three words along the lines of what the body of the policy says, and leave them in. Where I come out swinging is when the process and framework for resolving this gets threatened or attacked. One was when the RFC got hijacked, and my opinion was exactly the same as Jimbo's (he did explicitly weigh in on it and said that the first close was a proper close and that what happened next was not right). Second is when people who have an opposing opinion are threatened. (the "looks like you need to be investigated" crap) And third is that the tag is essential to preserve the somewhat middle ground and impetus needed to resolve the issue, given that the wording preferred by the minority (-in-the-big-RFC) is what is currently in there. In short, my "disputes" have been only on things to preserve the process, they have not been on the main issues. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
All I want to say on the mediation question is this - Mr. Stradivarius would be a fine mediator to help you all work this out. I would hope you would take his offer seriously. Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, North, hopefully my last comment. All that can be discussed and you can share your view, and they can share their perspective, and at the same time everyone can demonstrate their commitment to the consensus process and moving forward. Last. I promise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been named here, although I haven't been following what I gather is the recent disagreement over the tag. I've worked in the past to try to help find compromise wording, but more recently I've been tuning out the tl;dr. Some random thoughts: I think the suggested mediation might perhaps be quite helpful. It's a good idea to link the removal of the tag to agreement by all "sides" to a particular plan of action where something is done in return. I also think it would be a splendid idea for everyone involved to just take a six-month break from the whole thing. I heartily agree with Elen about the lameness of it. North, I don't think that most participants would accept you as a neutral party, although I have always found you to be very helpful there (and the IP's suggestion that you and SMarshall are in cahoots is unfounded). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I only offered and thought it might be accepted because the following situation exists: On the main "issue" there is no conflict, just a lack of any organized moving forward. On the real conflict (the tag) the only way to resolve it is to move forward in the area where there is no conflict. So I was only offering to be an organizer, not a mediator, because that area needs an organizer, not a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure, and I wasn't finding fault with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the role required is primarily an organizational one. I was using "mediator" as a catch-all term, with the idea that there are as many styles of mediation as there are mediators (and arguably as many as there are mediation cases). This organizational job would be different from content mediation in that there is no need to work out one single version (we can save that for the RfC), and we don't need to stick to a neutral point of view. One thing I think the role will have in common with content mediation, though, is that the participants will need to trust the person in charge. North, if the others involved are willing to trust you to do this, then that's great - let's go with that. If not, then it will probably save a lot of hassle if someone else organizes things. Let's see what a few other editors think about this before making any decisions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer, user:Mr Stradivarius. That approach seems quite acceptable. This matter is getting a bit messy, though. The IP editor above has now been blocked for 48 hours, apparently for the post above. This could seem like an attempt to muzzle discussion. At WP:ANI, there is now a thread, "Request for block review". NewbyG ( talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish was mentioned, I believe, because of this edit, and it was indeed a long time ago. So what next? I don't know how carefully anyone else has looked into the history of this tag, but I have done my homework. From its initial announcement it was immediately questioned. When another editor pointed out that "disputed" might not be a good way to tag it (and another editor agreed), this was a point apparently not taken many months later. Initially, other editors helped to link it to a discussion that was live, to justify the tag. No ones's touched that discussion since November. Now, the tag is truly just a black mark. North8000's offer to "organize" this nightmare any further... I personally find to be very "out of touch" with the situation. Doc talk 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Blush, I didn't even remember that. But yes, it's a long time ago, and I have trouble seeing how it would be an issue now, except as a matter of historical "interest". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Constructive discussion is continuing right now at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and North is playing an honorable part in the discussion. However, if a mediator or organizer is to be chosen, I think it should be someone who hasn't been taking part, such as Mr Stradivarius. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, just clarifying, my offer was to organize a way forward on resolving the reason for the tag, not on the discussions about the tag itself. On the former my views have been sort of low key and near the middle; not so on efforts to remove the tag without resolving its reason. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


This issue is and likely will be under discussion for a very long time. The fundamental problem here is that while removing "Not Truth" is preferred by a 2 to 1 majority, the opposers insist on keeping it, claiming previous consensus (way back in 2005 I think and not in a big Wikipedia-wide vote). But then, you do have to live with the natural consequences of that, which is continuing discussions. It's a bit like why opposers of gay marriage in California could shut down gay marriages from being performed, but obviously, they could never stop the efforts to legalize this. The monentum is clearly with the people in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Here the momentum is toward getting rid of "Not Truth", Jimbo even favors a much more radical text in which unverifiable knowledge by a single trusted Wikipedian can be included. Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at drafting a mediation page at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, to show people what a mediated discussion might look like in more detail. If enough of the involved users think this is a good idea, then we can press ahead with it. I have decided to put my money where my mouth is, so my name is now down as the mediator. Of course, it is up to all the parties whether they accept my involvement in this role. Before anyone agrees, I should warn you that I intend to keep things highly structured, and that I would be strict about refactoring/archiving discussions that go off-topic.

Please take a look at the mediation page, and see what you think. In particular, please look at the ground rules and the mediation agenda to get an idea of how the process would work. Also, could everyone take a look at the list of users that I made, add anyone that I have left off, and remove anyone who shouldn't be there? And most importantly, if anyone isn't willing to undergo mediation, then please tell me as soon as possible. This mediation will only gain real legitimacy if all the main users involved are willing to take part. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am boycotting Wikipedia for matters unrelated to WP:V. Please proceed without me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for letting me know. It's not so much a problem if people don't want to take part in the process at all - I'm more worried about people that want to participate in the policy discussion, but object to mediation for whatever reason. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Could you clarify, is the subject of the mediation the tag itself or resolving the underlying reason for the tag? The former without the latter is just throwing gasoline on the fire. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It's aimed at resolving the underlying reason for the tag. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear (but obviously not). The idea is to have another large-scale RfC on the "verifiability, not truth" issue, giving the community a few different choices as to how the policy should look. The tagging issue would be taken care of as a by-product of resolving the larger issue. I would stipulate that the parties agree not to edit the tag at all as a condition of accepting mediation - in return the mediation process will give the participants a guarantee of getting the issue resolved in whichever way the community decides. (Of course, this depends on the good-faith participation and cooperation of all the parties.) Did you take a look at the mediation page I drew up? I have laid the process down there in more detail. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes I did. I guess it's just the inherent complexity that there are two disputes:
  1. The underlying one over content, which has basically cooled down into friendly discussions that are going nowhere
  2. The recent dispute, which is over efforts to remove the tag without resolving the underlying reason for it.
If you are reaching reach back to include parties that were active in the previous big debate/dispute but now inactive (as you did with SlimVirgin) you are missing about 20 people so some clarification on which it is to be is needed.
After seeing the RFC process being manipulable to being a roadblock to any change, I have some reservations about it being the final test of a proposed change, but that does not appear to be your approach. My gut feel is that I'd agree to abide by those rules, and would support and participate in the mediation/initiative. But this would not preclude friendly/non-controversial efforts to seek a quicker solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
About the participants - I was hoping I could get your help with that. :) As this mediation is aimed at settling the big debate over "verifiability, not truth", we really need to invite all the people who were originally involved with it. I haven't looked to see exactly who that was - I just took the list of participants in this DRN thread and added Kalidasa777 and Blueboar as I thought they would be interested. If you could add people who I've missed to the MedCab case, I would be very grateful. I will also have a little look through the archives to find people who will likely be interested, but there's always the chance that I might miss some people. I'll also post a notice on WT:V when things are ready to go, so people who are active there now should see that even if they are not included. Of course, people are free to join even if they haven't had any involvement in the discussion so far.

I hear what you are saying about RfCs. In my experience the structure of an RfC is a huge factor in determining the final result, and I think that was definitely the case with the big VNT discussion. In that discussion there was basically one proposal, and two choices - support or oppose. Despite the proposal being very good, the binary nature of the RfC led many to oppose with minor disagreements and many to support with caveats. This blurring of the boundaries was a significant reason for the closing admins deciding there was no consensus, in my opinion. My plan for the new RfC is to give people a few choices, based on the feedback we got from the first time around. If people have more choices it should reduce the number of people who feel the need to give caveats, and therefore it should make it easier to judge consensus.

I agree that not everything needs to be done through an RfC, and I think there are perfectly valid changes that can be made to the policy through normal editing. However, I think that changing the "verifiability, not truth" wording with anything less than a big RfC would run the risk of community backlash considering the number of editors that participated in the first RfC. Maybe the best way to go about things would be to use the proposed RfC to choose the general structure that the policy should take, and to reserve the normal editing process for making more minor adjustments. That's my view on the matter, anyway - let me know if you have more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. I still have hopes for a faster resolution on another track, but I'm in. I think that the best way to look for the others would be those very active on the wp:ver talk page late September, all of October, and beginning of November. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Just a thought here, guys. I've watched the discussion about VNT both here and on the talk page, and although I have a very definite idea on the subject, I prefer to remain uninvolved for the moment. I know this issue will not be this easily settled, but might it be helpful to introduce a somewhat-informal poll and get input from the community? I know RFC has been tried several times, but it might help if we (on the WP:V talk page) introduced a section entitled "Removal of Under Discussion Tag" and have people weigh in with Support and Oppose and so forth. Let the involved editors voice their opinions first, then try to get others in the community to weigh in. Maybe it sounds a little naive on my part, but I think that might be the easiest way to bring a resolution - or, at the very least, move the discussion forward. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Focusing on the tag rather than the reason for it would be quite a departure. The approach that has been outlined on the mediation page is to resolve the reason for the tag. Trying change that to discussing removing he tag without resolving its reasons would be just gasoline on the fire. Or, more accurately, like relighting the fire and throwing gasoline on it. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carlingford Lough - Location field

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Carlingford Lough uses the Ocean template. The location field is being disputed. Currently the location states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border". The change I would like to make is to change the location to "Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border". This is for 2 reasons - 1) there is a map of Ireland used to point to the location, not a map of UK and Republic of Ireland 2) The article already refers to the location as on the Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border 3) it is more precise. The argument against is that Northern is not considered a country by some users even though the Article refers to Northern Ireland several times and 2) that the current info box does not allow for Northern Ireland in the location field, which isnt true.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

Bjmullan, has been involved on multiple disputes on this page, and received a block for edit warring.

Shame you never mentioned your own block here as well..... Bjmullan (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Carlingford Lough - Location field}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

This is a long running issue it would appear.

  • How do you think we can help?

I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved

Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough - Location field discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

I agree with Gravyring's points, and find the opposition to this edit more perplexing by the fact it is adding to the inconsistent manual of style that the opposition of this edit maintains in the article.

  1. The articles lede states: "Carlingford Lough (Irish: Loch Cairlinn; Ulster Scots: Carlinford Loch[1] or Cairlinfurd Loch)[2] is a glacial fjord or sea inlet that forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south."
  2. The infobox's "Basic Countries" parameter states "Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland"
  3. "Location" parameter states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border"

Not very consistent.

The edit would firstly create balance and consistency, and secondly is only an edit that makes it more precise. The parameter in question doesn't even state "country" in it, it states "location" and if Northern Ireland isn't a location, and if it doesn't share a border with the Republic of Ireland then something is seriously amiss.

Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the article lead. From the point of view of an uninvolved reader, the more specific reference to Northern Ireland is helpful in placing Carlingford Lough and is consistent with the map shown. UK is obviously a much more general reference. You could qualify the reference to Northern Ireland if needed and/or wanted and say "the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom." Again, the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader and would be better, in my opinion, even with the UK qualifier.Coaster92 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My oppositions to this change is based on the fact that Gravyring wants to removed an article link (Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border) and replace it with simple text. I believe that this article is of benefit to that user and should remain. If we want to consider consistent then we should consider using the two sovereign states in the article rather than a sovereign states and a province of another.Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nowhere in the article that specifies that we are dealing with sovereign states or provinces of another. It is common day practice especially on the island of Ireland for it to be referred as the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is nothing against keeping the article link and adding a pipe, or creating a redirect for Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border that takes it to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. It certainly wouldn't be an easter egg.
Also Bjmullan looking at the Carlingford Lough discussion, the basis of all of your comments is that Northern Ireland isn't a country, which is your prime arguement - not just that Gravyring wants to remove an article link. Mabuska (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Let me note that in studying this, I noted that the wrong infobox was being used and I changed infobox-ocean to infobox-bay. The field in dispute is the same in both infoboxes, and I simply copied over the information from one box to the other without changing it (except to move the coordinates from the text of the article into the infobox, which is the proper place when there is an infobox which allows coords). As for the dispute, it must be noted that except for a couple of changes which were immediately reverted, the location field has consistently remained [[Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border]] since discussion about this began in November, 2010, and all attempts and requests to change it have been rebuffed, thus indicating that the consensus for the last year and more has been to leave the article as it is. That being the case, the consensus policy says that any change of this text must be supported by consensus and goes on to specifically say that:

Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.

I see nothing approaching consensus for this change and I am aware of no policy or guideline that would require one outcome or another. Unless, therefore, Gravyring and Mabuska can obtain consensus for this change, it should not be made and the location tag should remain set to [[Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border]]. If they wish to seek additional editors views, they should consider an RFC (or, perhaps, better, by making a proposal to add a clarification about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, but it does not appear likely that they will be able to obtain consensus through persuading the other editors currently involved in this discussion and I am, therefore, closing this listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suicide methods

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Terminology is employed which shows a distinct political bias.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Suicide methods - Starvation}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?


  • How do you think we can help?

The article refers to POWs at Long Kesh. The inmates in question were all convicted by British courts of criminal activity in furtherance of terrorism. However much some people may wish to have these criminals perceived as political prisoners or prisoners of war, this is simply not factual.

CGAppleby (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suicide methods - Starvation discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Maple syrup

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I've been mulling over what to do about this, and DRN seemed the friendliest choice. The issue here is whether one person can keep a category in an article on the basis "You have not provided any reasons for me to dislike". What happened is that last October someone (wrote this before I discovered that it was Nikkimaria) placed Category:Article Feedback Blacklist on the article.[23]. This was removed on the 18th of this month[24] with an edit summary and was immediately (4 minutes) replaced by Nikkimaria. Within the next few minutes there were 4 more edits removing & replacing it, with the editor who placed it there in the first place arguing "WP:BRD, please stop unilateral removals and discuss" - I'll get back to that. There followed a discussion on the talk page, with Nikkimaria arguing BRD and various other aguments, which I won't discuss here because that isn't my issue. Nikkimaria stated "The default, per WP:BRD, is to have the category there, as that was the status quo prior to the unilateral removal that started this whole discussion". I (note I've been active on this article for a long time) mentioned it on the AfT feedback page which attracted the attention of two WMF editors. One of them removed it, immediate replacement again. I've removed it also to no avail. Nikkimaria is the only editor saying it should be on the blacklist, and I count 5 editors saying it should not. I removed it twice yesterday - maybe unwisely but my feeling is that this editor is not going to give in unless they find a "reason they like", and that is not a reason to keep reinstating it. I admit to pretty strong feelings about situations where one editor is trying to keep a tag on an article or in this case a category. While writing this I've noticed a similar problem - see Talk:Maple syrup#Birch syrup. Nikkimaria is generally a very good and constructive editor but in this case I think is editing against consensus to the extent that it could almost be considered edit warring. I'm not going down that line because it should be unnecessary. There may be a WP:OWN issue here.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Maple syrup}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

discussion on talk page

  • How do you think we can help?

Can one editor stop the removal of a category/tag in a situation where there are no policy issues mandating it and other editors disagree?

Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Maple syrup discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

It might help to have an intuitive comment from someone uninvolved and who will stay uninvolved. This is a featured article, so in my opinion worth getting right and avoiding instability problems. The discussion at Talk:Maple_syrup#Article_feedback_tool is a fair crack at consensus and in most cases would be sufficient to demonstrate that a local consensus has been reached already. To make it exceedingly clear, it would have been nice if it had followed a simple proposal and opinions layout, at a glance one would see where the main body of consensus was. It is unfortunate that there is a spin of community versus WMF (my words, apologies if this is an unhelpful parody). Though I believe the consensus is fairly blooming obvious, if Nikkimaria remains unconvinced and out of respect for their history of good contributions, I see little problem in offering to run a wider RFC on the issue rather than the DRN process. The folks involved so far would probably be better off just stating their opinions once, without feeling the need to continue justifying the AFT - the statements made already and the page linked that explain the tool and its background should be sufficient. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you but as I've said, for me the issue is more the behaviour of Nikkimaria than anything else, and I wouldn't want to have that get sidetracked. And note that I suggested an RfC and that suggestion was ignored. But I am glad that you agree that there is consensus there. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller and Fae, as I've already pointed out at that talk page, consensus is built by providing rationales for a particular action, and only 1-2 editors advocating for the removal of the category have done so. In fact, some of the reverts have been founded on specious arguments, and some (including Dougweller) have provided no arguments at all. I would also suggest it would be helpful for Dougweller to gain a clearer understanding of the context of the issues he raises (for example, the "birch syrup" issue was resolved amicably), and to review both WP:BRD and WP:OAS. I propose a simple solution to this issue: the subject be dropped until March 7, at which point the category will be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Assuming that absolutely nothing goes wrong with deployment or testing :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Does the WMF have some criteria for when that category should be used? WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not, to me, seem like a valid reason to override an effort from WMF that's intended to benefit the project overall.
But my first thought seeing the article title was that someone was way too much of a John Ringo fan. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, the category only exists for two purposes:
  1. To exclude articles currently running WP:AFT5 (so both don't show up together), and;
  2. to exclude disambiguation pages (the community said they'd be useless there, so we removed). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: The editor listing this dispute, Dougweller, has said that the "issue is more the behaviour of Nikkimaria than anything else." This venue is limited to content, not conduct, disputes except to the extent that such disputes are marginally connected with content disputes. Is there some reason that this case should not be closed and resume at WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARB? — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

((ec))Ouch. Content disputes. I see the point you are making. I'm not sure any of those are actually appropriate as it's a point of principle I'm really arguing about more than behaviour, but I didn't make that clear enough. Which is why I'm not sure any of those are appropriate, but I'll let myself be guided by others. Meanwhile, here's the post that got caught in the edit conflict: Nikkimaria asks me my reasons. Xe's reason given on the talk page when the issue was brought up there was "The addition of that category was an editorial decision". Then we had BRD, then it appears to be editorial discretion, then some complaints about the old tool which IMHO amount to 'I don't like it' and "I see no reason why I or any other editor be restricted from making that determination". There are then a couple of comments by others about the new tool, a comment by me saying I don't think the category should be in the article, N saying there is " certainly no consensus for removing it." although xe was the only editor saying it should not be removed, and a few more comments which didn't get any further - me saying xe is the only editor arguing for the blacklist cat, xe saying that I haven't given any reasons. This hasn't been a discussion about the applicable guidelines or policies, it's been one editor saying they don't like it (and that was about the old tool, not AFT5), others saying that wasn't justification enough. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving my misplaced post and adding that surely this is a content dispute? But it's not about whether the content is appropriate, but whether consensus can be blocked by one editor saying that they don't agree. It's a process issue. If it doesn't go here, and I'd rather not make it more personal, I'm not sure what to do. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Complaints about the "old tool" are applicable because it hasn't yet been replaced by the new tool - that was my point above about March 7, which is the anticipated roll-out date. Dougweller, could you please stop trying to characterize the dispute? You're introducing a lack of clarity, and it would be more helpful for others to look for themselves if they're interested. By the way, I'm female. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
@Dougweller (mainly): No, consensus cannot be blocked by one editor merely saying that they do not agree, but Nikkimaria's assertion is more than just that. She has asserted that some of those in opposition to her position are have not given adequate reasons for their position or, indeed, in some cases any reasons at all. Once we assume the good faith of that assertion, it is, on its face, a colorable reason to at least inquire into the question of whether or not consensus has been achieved since the "Determining consensus" section of the consensus policy begins:

Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing.

(The remaining parts of that section deal with the effect of policy on consensus, the fact that consensus can change, and what happens when a discussion ends in no consensus, not on the question of how consensus is to be determined in the first place.) In accordance with the policy, an uninvolved editor in good standing should examine the existence and quality of the arguments set forth in the current discussion and determine whether or not consensus has, in fact, been or not been reached. If that is what the parties in this dispute want to do, then I can suggest a methodology to do so, but at this point I believe this response answers the question proposed by the listing editor and to do more without the agreement of the parties would be inappropriate. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a side issue, but: BRD was invoked by one editor as an excuse for multiple reversions. I encourage all editors to take careful note of the third bullet point at WP:BRD-NOT, which says "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once." If you revert a change more than once, you are not following BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Good point. TrasporterMan, as I've been saying, I think the arguments have been, as Ravensfire says,WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Nikkimaria's part and 'it's ok' and 'your reasons aren't good enough to override this initiative' by others. No reasons for adding it to this specific article seem to have been given, and Nikkimaria hasn't been trying to add it to all articles, just to a handful. So I don't think the normal procedure of examining the quality of arguments is going to work here because it isn't that sort of any issue at least for this article. Which is why I decided to pursue the issue. Normally in disputes the issues are around policy and guidelines, but this, as Nikkimaria has said, is about 'editorial discretion'. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest those who are interested in what arguments were actually made go look at the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Maybe I'm missing something here, but having four editors against including the category (Maxim, Dougweller, Philippe (WMF), and Okeyes (WMF)) and one editor in its favour (Nikkimaria) seems like a consensus to remove it to me. (The rationale here is that "consensus" does not equal "unanimity".) I know that discussions are not a vote, but the "not a vote" argument is strongest when clear guidance can be found for a situation in the policies and guidelines. In this case there don't seem to be any particular policies that affect this situation other than Wikipedia:Consensus, so I would argue that the number of editors in support or opposition should be given greater weight than in situations where there is clear policy guidance. Nikkimaria, if you really want to include the category for this article, perhaps you could consider raising the question in an RfC on the article talk page? Otherwise, it might be best to concede this particular debate.

Of course, this issue isn't really just about the maple syrup article, but about whether individual editors can override the article feedback tool. If this is causing problems over multiple articles, then we should have a community discussion about it, to decide whether we should write something about removing the article feedback tool in policy. Alternatively, as the AFT is a foundation initiative, the foundation could simply dictate the policy themselves. At any rate, this should probably discussed, perhaps at village pump (policy). Once we have decided what to do about the larger issue, the situation at maple syrup will undoubtedly sort itself out. Just my two yen, anyway. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Starting an RfC on article talk would be rather pointless, because RfCs usually run for at least a week, and barring unforeseen complications the category will be removed in a week anyways. However, I would strongly object to any attempts to "dictate" policy - this isn't a legal issue (like BLP, for example), so there's no reason to override editors in that way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Strad, I'm not saying that the count is not likely to presage the likely outcome, nor am I saying that we do not frequently consciously overlook the quality vs. count issue as a practical, everyday approach to evaluating consensus, but I strongly disagree that "not a vote" most strongly applies when policy applies. When policy (or guidelines) apply, consensus plays no part at all unless an IAR local exception to policy is being considered. Policy is, per WP:CONLIMITED the established consensus of the community and the only issue is whether or not policy applies. That there is no policy which controls whether or not the category should be included in this case (and I agree) means that this dispute must be decided on the basis of what is best for the encyclopedia, which is exactly the situation in which the quality vs. quantity element of consensus is most important. A high numerical superiority in count will in due course ordinarily predict the side which also has the better arguments, but it is only a prediction; there are exceptions and we cannot simply assume the prediction is correct. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 04:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
But this isn't an exception. If Nikkimaria didn't like the AfT tool, selectively removing it from a handful of articles as she did is not the way to go about it. When she added the blacklist cat, she didn't argue that the tool was a problem for these specific articles, and when on 3 at least it was removed she insisted it be restored. I find it hard to believe that it is best for the encyclopedia that these articles be selectively left out of the trials, and I don't see her making that argument in any case. She made it clear in her first post that it was an editorial decision. I don't see anyway of objectively deciding if her reasons for excluding the articles from the trial are better than any possible arguments for leaving them in, or indeed vice versa, and the numerical count is clearly against her. Despite that she has insisted on restoring the blacklist and she was the only editor insisting on that. The proper thing to do would have been, IMHO, to bow to the others but continue to try to get consensus to restore the blacklist cat. Even now she is insisting it remain until the 7th. That's soon of course and in isolation makes no difference, but it's a bad message to send that one person can maintain a category or tag against the opposition of several other editors when as you agree there is no policy (or I think guideline) issue to be resolved. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"she didn't argue that the tool was a problem for these specific articles" - yes, I did. Though I think AFT as it stands needs significant improvement (which will hopefully be accomplished by v5), I didn't go around removing it from every article I've ever edited, just a very specific subset. In fact, I pointed this out in the discussion at Talk:Maple syrup. I would really recommend you read that discussion in full before continuing to mischaracterize my arguments and actions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you did point out that you weren't removing it from every article, but the reasons you give for blacklisting seem general, not specific to anything about this article - I've read your comments several times before and just before posting this, and I still can't see anything that wouldn't apply generally. I apologise if I've missed something, but I don't think I have, and with 7y editors arguing against you isn't it time to retire gracefully? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As I've already stated, I have every intention of removing the category in a few days. Surely you can be patient until that time? After all, there is no deadline. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
And on the talk page, I just notice that as of several hours ago there are two more editors calling for the tool to be allowed: After commentary such as " Objective? Removing Rating=No. Utterly subjective, "I can, so I did" a user concluded "Oh, and I think the other editors deserve to see how their work stacks up by user ratings. The onus would be on anyone to explain why the other editors should be denied that.Now, everyone go fry some bacon... --cregil (talk) 4:54 am, Today (UTC+0)" immediately followed by "Seconded. An RFC? Just stick the widget back in and lets do something more useful. Meters (talk) 5:21 am, Today (UTC+0)" That's 7 editors calling for the tool to be allowed, and just one insisting on keeping the blacklist category. TransporterMan, is that enough? Is Nikkimaria justified in continuing to replace it still? Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not mean this as a personal criticism, Dougweller, but only as a comment upon your argument. The problem is that it's skipping a step in the process. You may — or may not — be absolutely right that Nikkimaria's argument is devoid of merit and that she is engaging in open and obvious ownership of a entire range of articles and, indeed, conspiring with Dr. Evil to take over all of Wikipedia, but at this point in the process the community must assume good faith that her claim that she has the better argument has merit and engage in the prescribed process to evaluate that claim. (I have not, and at this point in time still do not, express any opinion about that claim other than the fact that it is, under Wiki-principles of collegiality and cooperation, worthy of being properly evaluated.) Once that process begins, then your arguments will be apropos and should be given the same serious consideration as hers, along with everyone else's who have weighed in on this matter. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have read the discussions-- here and on the MS article. I remain unable to find any reason for removing the tool. That the data is not trustworthy enough for that editor, and that others have complained-- is no reason take the tool away from use of others who do find some use in it.
That dissenting editor is not required to use it-- but to remove it from being used by those who may is not reasonable. It is a tool made available to contributors, editors and readers. Give them the tool, or explain why one can prevent others from using. The burden lies there-- not with those who complained that their tool had been removed.
If the dissenting editor has met that burden, then I would need to see another summarize the relevant argument, because what I see as "reasons" are so vague as to be unable to articulate them.
--cregil (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If cregil had made the foregoing statement before becoming involved in the discussion at the article talk page, I would have said that it constituted a "determination ... made by any uninvolved editor in good standing" and would be binding on the disputants as to the issue of whether or not consensus exists, but, alas, by becoming involved at the talk page before coming here, s/he is no longer "uninvolved" and the statement is simply no more than another contributor to the question of consensus. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And yet, the words remain. Despite the order of appearance, and my personality which seeks dialogue before it seeks effect, "What has been written... has been written."--cregil (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. And despite Nikkimaria being in a minority of 1 with 7 editors opposing here, we are still being told there must be someone uninvolved stating that there is a consensus. I don't understand this. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Dougweller, without any disrespect intended, if there were consensus here, then we wouldn't be on DRN in the first place. Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments, not the quantity. The number of people on one side does not determine the strength of a consensus. That being said, however, Nikkimaria is the dissenting editor, so she needs to support her dissent logically. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Which I've already done, at length, on the talk page before and during this discussion. For the benefit of those who may have been misled by the misstatements above:
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. The initial removal of the category was part of a large-scale unilateral series of edits. When it became clear that those edits were disputed, rather than taking the time to discuss, the editor re-made the edits that had been reverted, starting an edit war. This is primarily an informational/procedural point, to explain to those uninvolved how this dispute arose
  2. The tool as it currently stands is poorly designed. It provides no means of reasonably evaluating the feedback, is open to gaming and misuse (for a clear example, see here), lacks finesse, and does not allow for explanation of ratings. The updated version of the tool will hopefully address this point, which is why I have already stated several times that I will be removing the blacklist when the update is implemented
  3. For this article in particular, the data has been ambiguous, and the tool has failed to benefit the article, instead distracting from potential avenues of article improvement
  4. Though there are six editors supporting the removal of the category, some of these have provided rationales for removal based on false premises, while others have provided no rationale at all beyond head-counting. Specifically:
  1. "looking at the talk page, there are 3 editors suggesting it be removed, one saying it should stay" - WP:NOTAVOTE
  2. "I disagree with having it here" - not a rationale for removal
  3. "Philippe edited with his official WMF account" - irrelevant. Unless an edit is marked as an office action, edits from WMF accounts are subject to the same standards/policies as those of any editor (evidence)
  4. "no reason given for revert. see further note on talk" and similar - irrelevant, as once the edit was disputed the editor should have initiated discussion instead of edit-warring
  5. "barring technical or legal reasons, it should remain there" - no evidence provided for this assertion, despite a request for such
  6. " The reason of "editorial decision" is not valid for overriding a Foundation initiative" - false. Except in cases of legal issues, the WMF has traditionally allowed for community discretion in implementation of its initiatives and resolutions
  7. "I don't see a consensus for it being in the article and I don't think it should be in the article myself, so I removed it" - first part is irrelevant as at that point it was one for, one against; second part is not a valid reason without a rationale
  8. "Just stick the widget back in and lets do something more useful" - no rationale provided
  9. "More feedback is better than not enough, and not enough is better than no feedback at all" - this is actually a valid rationale, though one that I dispute. I responded to it in detail on the article talk page, but in short: the ambiguity of the feedback provided by the current version of AFT is so pronounced that it's actually less helpful than no feedback at all
Now, given that the question that began this noticeboard post has already been answered, and that barring unforeseen complications the category will be gone by this time next week, is there anything else that needs to be done here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a few issues that could use discussion here. First, to clarify Nikkimaria's post above (one does not appreciate being misleadingly quoted out of context!):

  1. Unilateral edits are how Wikipedia works. In nearly all cases, consensus is not required to make edits. BRD is not carte blanche to revert. Summaries such as "rv", "WP:BRD, please stop unilateral removals and discuss", etc. are non-summaries—why should I discuss if you can't be bothered to give a reason as to why you disagree?
  2. The Wikimedia Foundation should not be giving the impression of making edits. While Philippe probably intended to edit in his volunteer capacity, it was nonetheless done with WMF account. I never suggested it was an Office action; however, care should be taken when reverting, and the blanket reverting is evidence of not taking care.
  3. Disputing an edit means giving a reason as to why you disagree. As I previously mentioned, "rv" is not a reason as to why an edit should be reverted.
  4. "Barring technical or legal reasons (...)" — evidence was given, e.g. "For example, we don't override the Fundraising banners even if a lot of users find them annoying." The widgets were emplaced on every article, and so far no evidence has been provided why Maple syrup is so special, but any random article is not. The reasons given for removing the widget are general enough to apply to any article, but so far the widget has been overridden in but a few articles.
  5. "The reason of "editorial decision" is not valid for overriding a Foundation initiative" — absolutely true in context, specifically "The addition of that category was an editorial decision (...)". I asked for clarification of this "editorial decision" yet received none.

Issues that could use discussion would include unilateral disabling of the widget, blanket reverts, and the matter of consensus.

The arguments presented for disabling the widget are very broad (e.g. disruptive to readers, the feedback has been net-unhelpful, the finesse of the tool is incompatible with audited content). This justification can apply pretty much to any article, and no valid reason has yet been given as to why Maple syrup and a few others are specifically blacklisted. I am disappointed in Nikkimaria's blanket-reversion approach, because it is akin to an WP:IDONTLIKEIT statement; no reason as to why an edit is problematic is given. Finally, it is not within Wikipedia's consensus system to be blanket-reverting when multiple (uninvolved!) editors have disagreed. In politics, this technique is called a filibuster; on Wikipedia, we call it WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Maxim(talk) 00:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I was disappointed with your blanket-reversion approach as well. With regards to your first point, if you review WP:BRD, you'll find that citing BRD in an edit summary is actually recommended, and that "dispute" is defined only as "revert", not "revert with a full explanation"; it is incumbent upon you to begin a discussion, whether you feel like doing so or not, rather than trying to reimpose your edit. Your second point should really be raised elsewhere, but the fact remains that unless the edit is specifically marked as an office action, edits by WMF editors are to be treated the same as those by any editor. To your last point, I did provide clarification, and the context you provide does not make your assertion any truer. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit here by blocked user ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq deleted. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I oppose your handling of this manner. Valid reasons have been provided above, and have not been addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing notes: A determination has now been made by uninvolved editor in good standing ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq that there is consensus for the position that the Article Feedback Tool blacklist category tag should not be on this article. Pursuant to the "Determining consensus" section of the consensus policy that determination is now binding on all parties to the discussion and the tag may be removed by any editor. Replacing it could be considered to be disruptive editing or evidence of improper ownership. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening notes: As it turns out, User ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq was under an indefinite block and was thus not in good standing, and so his/her consensus determination was not effective and the case should remain open. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Cregil and the blocked editor posted to the article talk page first (unless I've misread something), but you rejected Cregil saying he was involved by first posting to the talk page, and accepted the blocked editor as uninvolved. I can't follow that. And " If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing." doesn't say that this can't be done on the talk page, so why was Cregil rejected? Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone's going to have to close out this discussion. Since I'm the only regular here that hasn't commented on the discussion as of yet, I think that will fall to me, but I'll take a look at this in the morning, I think. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 09:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I note that Nikkimaria says on the talk page ". I removed the category for 24 hours to re-evaluate its merit. During that time, the ratings remained ambiguous, no improvements were made to the article (other than those made by me), no one who rated the article chose to either edit it directly or provide an explanation/suggestion/complaint on talk, and my conclusion that the current iteration of the tool is unnecessary and unhelpful was confirmed." That of course is unsurprising and inconclusive IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking over this discussion and the discussion at talk:maple syrup, I believe a consensus exists to remove the AFT blacklist category from the article. An overwhelming majority of editors who have commented have supported removing the category. Although consensus is determined by strength of argument and not simply by vote, I do not believe that any of the arguments that Nikkimaria has advanced are convincing enough to forestall consensus, and I believe that other editors have agreed with me on that. I haven't commented on this discussion previously and I'm not sure I've ever commented on AFT previously, so I should be uninvolved here. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am dispassionate. But I don't get the reason for exempting Maple syrup from any specific implementation of an article feedback tool. What is the reason this article is to be treated differently from others? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reclosing notes: For the sake of brevity, let me just say that I repeat everything I said in the closing notes, above, except substituting Kevin (kgorman-ucb) for ʇdɯoɹdɥsɐq. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turks in Bulgaria

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

First of all - a small dispute, between me and Hittit, for the using of some claims of a ridiculous Turkish author - Kemal Karpat, for which I am sure that are the point of view of the Turkish historians and are not supported by any not Turkish sources. As the second basic note for editing says "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources.", this have not received support by the external sources and has to be deleted, thats why I was deleting the Turkish historian's claims and Hittit was backing them. So Hittit, you should provide an author which support the Turkish historian's claims, until you don't they should go from the article. I am personally sure that a non-Turkish source supporting Kemal Karpat do not exist, no matter whether you will search in Google Books or in the Library of Alexandria, his claims do not have in common with reality and are simply not supported by anybody. Only the fact that the so called historian is Turkish makes him biased and should be deleted as not any Bulgarian historians are used, not mentionting what he write, ridiculous inflations, augmentations and etc. I like the current way, external authors are used, Mark Levene, R. J. Crampton, Justin McCarthy and Hupchick, although McCarthy and Hupchick have pro-Turkish bias. Crampton's opinion for example completely differs from those of the Turkish historians.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Turks in Bulgaria}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?


  • How do you think we can help?

Give your third party opinion I suggest or with something else you think would be helpful

Ceco31 (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iron Guard - WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:HARASS issues

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

Please check the history page of Iron Guard article. It seems they are agents of influence of certain organizations and they are pushing specific points of view. They are not common editors because they are helping and covering each other's actions. I saw other editors are systematically intimidated by user User:Dahn. Please check their conflicts with other editors.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

I do not want to be involved in such dispute.

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Iron Guard}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Too dangerous. They are threatening other editors for their point of view, imposing censorship.

  • How do you think we can help?

It depends if you want or not a censored encyclopedia.

95.25.247.39 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Iron Guard discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kids in Glass Houses

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

Page is continuously being vandalised by Twitter user https://twitter.com/#!/pipviolatedyou and followers. Each possible word is chaged to Pip.

Users involved


Resolving the dispute Tried to undo edits but did not have enough knowledge regarding Kids in Glass Houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Placeboellie (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Kids in Glass Houses discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Another editor has reverted back 1.5 months and asked why page not protected, so I've semi-protected it. Some blocks may be in order also. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeffrey Epstein

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

This is a very controversial person we are dealing with. His crimes are serious and should not be overlooked. But I have, I think, some legitimate concerns about the neutral point of view of this piece. 1) Money laundering is mentioned in the lead. But there is no mention of money laundering in any of the references and citations. I have tried to remove this but unsuccessfully. And I have asked for citations to be shown but have been ignored. Money laundering is a serious accusation and is libel if it cannot be found in the sources. Please let's remove it if we cannot find it cited. Or find a cite that acutally contains it and then put it in.

2) I am very concerned about having a mug shot in the photo with mug shot captions. Wikipedia is conservative in its usage of mug shots. Otherwise, they would be used for such people as Al Pacino and countless others who have been imprisoned for drugs, crack, prostition, statutory rape etc. Mug shots are not used when there are other salient aspects of the person. An article should not be event driven if there are other salient aspects. I am not in the business of whitewashing criminals. On the contrary. But I do come from the science community (with no connection to Epstein though) and his contributions to the sciences are notable.

3) I wanted to put in a defining line to The Program of Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University. What it is and that it was the first institute or entity that mathematically quantified the kinetics of an in vivo human cancer cell. This was a direct result of Epstein's funding and interest and I think I should be allowed to mention it. Nomoskedacisity has reverted this several times on the grounds of WP: TOPIC, stating that if people want to know what it is, then the Program of Evolutionary Dynamics should have its own wikipedia article. This seems ridiculous to me. He was completely dismissive when I tried to explain my point of view in good faith. Please see his talk page. The Program is not a household name like the Bible or the Eiffel Tower. So it is appropriate to have one defining line after it to benenfit the reader as to its significance and what it accomplished.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Jeffrey Epstein}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

I have posted my concerns on the talk pages of all the users mentioned. But I was either dismissed or ignored.

  • How do you think we can help?

Please advise

Turvill (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

There is disagreement about whether the template should exist at all.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

Yes.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Template talk:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism.

  • How do you think we can help?

I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved.

BoDu (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslav Axis collaborationism discussion

Oh dear, another controversy about Yugoslavia in World War II. Great, just what we needed. Thanks for informing me : anyway, I have not really taken part in the controversy as I have lacked the time to contribute to the english wikipedia lately. Still, I do think there are some POV issues involved in this template, as in many Yugoslav-themed articles. My position in a nutshell is that the template should not exist at all, or rather be replaced by a template which would include everything regarding the Yugoslavia in World War II and not try to push forward any judgement about anybody. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The template topic is inherently focusing on a specialized negative aspect. North8000 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. Surely this is about whether the existence of the template is warranted by the sources and in the context of Yugoslavia in WW2. For example, it is abundantly clear from the exhaustively sourced material in the Chetniks and Pavle Djurisic articles that Chetniks and Djurisic collaborated. Djurisic was awarded the Iron Cross by the German commander in Montenegro, for Pete's sake! JJG's suggestion that no-one should be trying 'to push forward any judgement about anybody' is surely a contradiction to the encyclopedic nature of WP. If the reliable published sources make judgements that collaboration was a significant issue in Yugoslavia in WW2 (and they resoundingly do), then my view is that the use of the template is appropriate in that context. If collaboration is significant in context, then it does not matter if, as North8000 suggests, it is inherently focusing on a specialised negative aspect. It is significant, and this justifies the template. I must say I feel the cold hand of POV touching my shoulder on this one, and I must also say that there are quite a few editors on these articles that are from the countries involved, who have strong sympathies for one of the nations or ethnic groups involved, or have strong views on the events of WW2 in Yugoslavia (ie axes to grind or at the very least a perceived conflict of interest). I have observed that these feelings and sympathies can lead some editors far away from the sources. BoDu for example, who has brought this dispute here, makes it clear on his user page that he despises Tito and is a fan of a member of the WW2 Yugoslavian government in exile (Grol). I do my best to WP:AGF regarding all editors, and I hope BoDu does his best to keep these feelings at bay when he edits articles that relate to Tito and the Partisans or Serbs involved in WW2, but if he has those views, he's pretty close to the problem, and it makes it much harder to discuss these things with him because his view is not necessarily based on reliable published sources. Peacemaker67 (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. BoDu never brings up sources, and on the singular occasion he did bring-up a source, has been caught blatantly falsifying it (apparently listing a publication and an author with random page numbers hoping he wouldn't get called on them).
@North8000, "not pushing judgement on anybody" sounds very zen but it really makes no sense. We must represent what the sources have to say, no more no less. -- Director (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jean-Jacques Georges and North8000 that the template should not exist. Almost all countries that were under Axis occupation do not have template about the collaborationism (I found only Denmark). BoDu (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course you do. Deleting content and whole templates is a small price to pay as long as you can delete the sourced information as "collateral damage". -- Director (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Having extensively read the discussion at hand, and arguments for and against the template, I would like to assist in the resolution of this dispute. Firstly, I wish to address that given that editors in this matter have a horse in this race it is essential that inflammation of the situation be minimised. People feel passionate about things, and when you butt heads with someone with opposing views whether intentionally or unintentionally it is always a distressing issue.

The matter of the template appears to have a pre-existing consensus as to it's neccessity, and all elements therein are extensively sourced. I am assuming that the extensive sourcing is in place due to the controversial nature of the issue. Whilst no one wants to hear bad things about their nation or ethnic group, and whilst people have varying views on history based on personal experience, these issues border on original research and emotive elements that cannot be dealt with within Wikipedia.

We have guidelines and policies to assist us with these matters, and in situations like this it is probably more prudent to take issues with the policies that allow something you disagree with rather than turning to an article to champion your cause.

My grandfather was a Yugoslav partisan, although I know nothing about the matter beyond that, so I shall leave my interaction on this matter purely as commentary rather than determined dispute resolve.

To my credit, half of my family were on the allied side, the other half on the axis side, from British naval and air force officers, to a member of the SS, the partisan grandfather, etc, etc. So I swiftly learnt to have no vested interest in those sorts of issues to survive family gatherings; but again I feel that this (whilst not reflected anywhere on Wikipedia and thus is purely me being transperent and open about something personal in my family history that may be held against me by participants in this dispute) may be enough to remove me from the argument.

If on these grounds any party would like me to step away from this dispute I am more than willing to do so. We have numerous active volunteers who are here to help you, and as much as I would like to assist I can just as easily ask another volunteer to step up. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course its sourced. Thoroughly sourced. And all participants aside from BoDu have taken that into consideration. -- Director (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Carlingford Lough - The border

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

I am just looking a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a needless POV push on this particular page and I would like to see if an Admin can see an overwhelming consensus on this change?

[25]

Certain users have been pushing the viewpoint that Northern Ireland is not a country and hence does not have an international border with ROI. The term International was removed from text, leaving the border. Either international should be restored to the text or the pipe should be removed.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?

The page is largely held back in its content by a number of Irish Nationalist POV pushers, who seem to want to pretend that NI does not exist as a country. Currently there is a discussion on the location field of the infobox which currently pipes to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. So there is a contradiction.

  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Carlingford Lough - The border}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Topic discussion with no reasoning to objection.


  • How do you think we can help?

There are a number of inconsistency's on the page, but POV pushers are prohibiting the addition of accurate edits.

1. The term International was removed without consensus. A revert is necessary.

2. The location field should be changed to Northern Ireland to mirror point 1 and to be consistent with 'basin countries' field and the map of Ireland showing both Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland.

Gravyring (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough - The border discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persian Gulf Naming Dispute

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Dispute overview

  • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

the user "Uishaki" is vandalizing the internationally-recognized geographic name of the Persian Gulf. I (user:Kamran the Great) undid a few of their edits and left message on talk page, with references. Their response on my talk page, although civil, is unacceptable and lacks any reliable evidence. Uishaki has then proceeded to make the same change to other pages.

Users involved

  • Who is involved in the dispute?
  • Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

  • N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Persian Gulf - name vandalizing}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

  • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

discussed on talk page.

  • How do you think we can help?

Asking the other user to stop disruptive and incorrect editing.

Kamran the Great (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf Naming Dispute discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Comment by Zero - Although other names exist, the name in English sources for this body of water is overwhelmingly "Persian Gulf" and this has been true for a couple of centuries. We have an article: Persian Gulf naming dispute. The wiki guideline of using common English names doesn't allow any other name in ordinary references. Zerotalk 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk Comment: Just a quick reminder to everyone here (I will probably comment more in-depth when I have a little more time) - edit warring (or even stubbornness) is not vandalism. This goes for everyone involved - you may not like the position of the other editors, but the accusations of vandalism need to stop, and they need to stop now, as no vandalism has been committed. Zero: the Wiki guideline is just that: a guideline. Nothing - nothing - on Wikipedia is set in stone. That is the entire purpose of the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean one particular name can or can't be used. We have to address the problems with the way the dispute is framed before we can adequately address the dispute itself. Everyone: There will be no more accusations of vandalism in this thread - from anyone. Any such accusations will be removed or refactored. I (and I believe I speak for everyone who assists here on DRN) take false accusations of vandalism very seriously, and there will be no more on this thread. Having said that, we can now continue the discussion. I will try to give a more in-depth comment on the dispute when I am less busy and have had a little more time to research the situation, but for now, remember that the correct way to resolve a dispute on Wikipedia is by staying cool and addressing edits, not editors. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, sorry if it appeared otherwise. A guideline is something we should follow unless we have a good reason not to. In this case we have an attempt to replace a very common name by a very unusual one in multiple articles, without a sufficient reason being offered. In my opinion, that is an example of what the guideline intends to avoid. It isn't vandalism but it isn't good editing either. It is bad for the comprehensibility of articles to use names that most readers don't know, when there is a very common one available. Zerotalk 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
(Comment from uninvolved editor) I agree that the guidelines are very clear that we should use "Persian Gulf". The main guideline that is applicable here is WP:PLACE, which says "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources". "Persian Gulf" seems by far the most common name used in English-language reliable sources; there's Britannica and the CIA World Factbook for two, plus the whole of our article on Persian Gulf naming dispute. There is simply no way that "Arabian Gulf" can be used instead of "Persian Gulf". Sorry about this Uishaki, but that's just the way Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. As for the conduct of the editors, none of the edits of either editor involved were vandalism, and Sleddog is right that we should be very strict with our use of this word. Next time, I strongly recommend sticking to the definition found at WP:VANDAL. That's not to say that none of the edits were problematic - I think that if Uishaki continues to change "Persian Gulf" to "Arabian Gulf" then he could be sanctioned for tendentious editing. I would say that if there is more edit warring over this, then it would probably be best to start a thread at WP:ANI. Hopefully things won't come to that, though, as ANI threads are rarely pleasant experiences for the editors involved. If anyone has any questions about my comment, please let me know. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Stradivarius, you beat me to the punch here. I had actually discussed this with User:TransporterMan already, but it's probably a good time to reiterate it. Uishaki, if you are against the name "Persian Gulf," your only real recourse at this time would be to discuss a possible change to the Manual of Style, but you'll most likely end up with the same results there. It may be time to just move on to other editing opportunities in other areas of Wikipedia. I'm going to close this thread now, as all the appropriate action seems to have been taken. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_21&oldid=1138443640"