Template talk:DSM personality disorders

(the content below is copied from Administrators' noticeboard, where Penbat originally raised his concern. The content is moved here, to better facilitate long-term resolution of the issues.) --Arcadian (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

administrator User:Arcadian merged 2 templates without any prior discussion. They are Template:DSM personality disorders and Template:ICD-10 personality disorders. I left a message on his talk page. I reverted the merge but he reverted back.--Penbat (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please review the edit history. This involves a forking from November that also occurred without any prior discussion. --Arcadian (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You could at least commented your merge and you didnt even do that. What was I supposed to think ?
 * I dont agree with your prognosis that I created a fork. I simply created a new ICD-10 template as a spin-off. The original template was heavily DSM-orientated. I dont need a consensus to create a new template.
 * Even if i agreed with your analysis - 2 wrongs dont make a right do they ?
 * There are practical issues with the new merged template, too many to be explained here. I bet you hadnt even considered this.
 * It is very short sighted to merge simply because you didnt like the procedure for creating the new ICD-10 template last year. Well i certainly dont like your procedure for this merge and thats for sure.
 * You havent merged it in anything like the state in which the template was "split" so you havent simply undone it. There are all sorts of consequences. --Penbat (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the procedural side, you ask yourself is the merged template any better than the 2 separate templates and the answer is a resounding no. --Penbat (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * ICD and DSM have nothing whatsoever to do with POV forking. They are very much self-contained and it is confusing to try and combine them.--Penbat (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Steady on, you're acting a little own-y here. Does it really matter?  f o x  18:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * actually accusing me of own-y really pisses me off. If an academic or 2 came a long and took over from me I would be more than happy. But in quite few instances, such as this one, i sacrifice quite a lot of my time and effort into something, as nobody else seems to be interested in doing it, that suddenly gets blanked with no valid reason given.--Penbat (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, an editor made changes that undid good-faith work on your part. I've had that happen to me as well and I agree that it can be frustrating. But I again have to wonder: why are you posting about this here? Did Arcadian misuse his admin tools? Has he threatened to block you over your dispute? Is there sockpuppetry or wikihounding involved? If all there is to this story is regular WP:BRD disagreement that happens to involve a party who is an admin, but has performed no admin actions related to the disagreement, then there is no reason for it to be here. --RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not clear on why this was even brought to the admin noticeboard, instead of using a template talk page or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. Merging two templates is something that any editor can do, as long as they know how. It does not involve the use of administrator tools, and prior discussion is a good idea but isn't mandatory. If there is an action required by uninvolved admins, I'm not seeing what it is. This is not a forum for every editorial disagreement that involves someone with the admin bit. --RL0919 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting
Penbat, could you explain why you want an ICD version of the nav, and a DSM version? --Arcadian (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DSM5
DSM5 needs to be catered for once details of DSM5 personality disorders are known. However it looks to me like DSM5 should be included in here first, followed by DSM IV then DSM III.--Penbat (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)