Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 30

Osteopathic Medicine in the United States


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

User Hopping (I have informed him that I am notifying DRN) has been attempting to engage me in an edit war on this page by reverting my edits for inadequate reasons and continues to do so. He has stated that his reason for the reversion of my edits originally for "style" and "clarity" with no explanation how his edits added to clarity and then cited an old, unresolved discussion that only partially relates to my edits as the basis for his reversions. I sought out help on the live wikipedia help site and was informed by volunteers there more familiar with wikipedia policy that his reversions were not based on sound reasoning and should be, as I suggested to him numerous times, done after the discussion over nomenclature has been made public to the talk page and a consensus reached. However, he continued to make these revisions immediately after moving our conversation on his talk page to the talk page (there was miscommunication) obviously not leaving time for outside comments on the nomenclature issues and continues to make these revisions despite my calls for allowing for the discussion to occur first. I have already assured him that should the majority opinion, once a wide variety of opinions are obtained to ensure a representative opinion of the community, that I would not object to his reversions. However, since the discussion he refers to took place on a DRN that was not binding and is only partially relevant to my edits, and new opinions have since weighed in on the issue since the old discussion adding support for the opinion that had less support.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

I have seen that this user has a history of conflict of interest and often does not directly respond to the content of what I say to him but evades instead. Furthermore, I have seen other users bring up the very issue that Hopping argued against in the previously mentioned old discussion (and he is still arguing against it) in terms of nomenclature and I have seen comments from users talking to him on his own page that confirm what he views as "clarity", may in fact confuse users based on what he favors. I can provide evidence of these events if necessary.


 * 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  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 spoken to this user numerous times on his talk page and the article's talk page attempting to engage in discussion and have him allow for other users to participate in the discussion before taking an immediate course of action when none is warranted but he persists in making these reversions and evading the content of what I say to him.


 * How do you think we can help?

Please inform this user of the importance of allowing for a full discussion to take place on the talk page before taking any decisive action and reverting my comments and to actually engage in a constructive conversation with me when I openly communicate with him that I wish to avoid an edit war, to address the content of my arguments, and to make sure his reversions or edits are accurate (the reversion of my edits are inaccurate since some of my edits do not pertain to what he is claiming should be corrected).

TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Osteopathic Medicine in the United States discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' There's an open sock puppetry case that's relevant: Sockpuppet investigations/DoctorK88. Bryan Hopping T 03:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly which page is in dispute and where have you discussed the dispute?Curb Chain (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An erroneous claim with malicious intent. I have explained at length on administrator AGK's page. Also, if you go to the help desk you will see him attempting to "poke the bear" a behavior I did not realize had a name on wikipedia. Also, irrelevant to the validity of the claims I have made from a logical standpoint. The fact remains that Hopping's reversions were misguided, he evaded what I said, and his reversions were based on an old, unresolved dispute and a still open Rfc that only partially pertains to my edits and not others. He refuses to allow the discussion on the talk page to pan out before making the final decision of reverting my edits (which are not incorrect but just in his opinion "unnecessary and unclear" though users on his own talk page have expressed to him the exact opposite, that his way is unclear. I made it completely clear that if the talk page discussion decided that my edits were not good ones then I would not object to their reversion. He has been most uncooperative and I view his sockpuppetry actions as that of a personal attack. He has also been following my discussions where I talk on other pages as well for no good reason when I seek outside help.  TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hopping was also advised to read WP:Hounding implying that his behavior was wikihounding. This can be seen here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Contact_if_someone_purposely_and_erroneously_accuses_you_of_sockpuppetry.3F TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * CurbChain, the article with the dispute is the talk page of this article. It has been discussed a bit here, initially on on Hopping's talk page and my own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States    TylerDurden8823 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the sockpuppetry case that Hopping brought against me is now closed to update you Curbchain. What is the next step from here?TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The next step in the dispute resolution would be an attempt by me to resolve the dispute here, and your (hostile) response here . Bryan Hopping  T  15:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because I refuse to work with you on the talk page of that article any longer does not make me hostile, Hopping, though you do seem to enjoy throwing that word around. I refuse to work with you any longer on that page because of your unacceptable behavior which I have already said. You insisted on conducting yourself in a harassing manner and instead of holding a discussion with me tried to ask the other parent The actual issue is whether or not you should be making the reversions before the community weighs in on this still open discussion. You have been inconsistent in your willingness to work with me. Half the time you ignore the issues I bring up entirely or evade my responses, or simply talk about something else and hurl accusations and personal attacks my way and the other half of the time you seem like you're almost willing to hold a meaningful, constructive conversation but this inconsistency is not okay. Regardless, I am here to discuss with Curbchain the concept of not making reversions to edits that are not "factually wrong" but just your own opinion while this discussion remains open via the open Rfc and a previous DRN discussion which was not binding and only partially pertained to my edits.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 22, 2012 at 19:29 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be stale or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus incident
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 a severe edit war regarding the inclusion of a quote by Jim Treacher that defends Mitt Romney's treatment of his dog Seamus by noting the Barack Obama once ate dogmeat: "Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth." I have stayed out of this debate, but it has resulted in daily edit war which have made any editting of this article difficult. From May 3rd to May 7th, this article was under full protection because of edit warring largely revolving around similiar material that discussed Obama's consumption of dogmeat. The supporters of the quote have stated it is relevant to the Seamus incident article because Treacher is defending Romney against allegations of animal cruelty by comparing it to Obama's past behavior, and that the non-inclusion of the quote is an NPOV violation. Some supporters also note that some news stories treat the Seamus story and the dogmeat story together. Opponents of the quote state that Obama's consumption of dogmeat as a child is not relevant to the Seamus incident, and it creates a BLP violation or coatrack that attacks Obama in an article that's not about him. Several opponents also have stated that a recent AfD (WP:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs) deleted an article about Obama eating dogs, and that inclusion of this material would violate the AfD's decision, which was to delete the article, and not merge it with the Seamus article.

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  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 have been at least 8 discussion threads at Talk:Seamus incident about Obama's consumption of dogmeat. None have come close to a obtaining any consensus.


 * How do you think we can help?

(1) Evaluate editors' interpretation of Wikipedia policies regarding this material to see their claims are valid; (2) Reference a past article which had a similiar dispute with similiar policy issues being cited; and/or (3) Come to some form of resolution which will satisfy most of the editors.

HHIAdm (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seamus incident discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Hmm. I just answered a straw poll on the talk page of the article in question; I've never edited the article itself. Better safe than sorry, I suppose. I have my opinion, and I'll answer any questions. --BDD (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV depends on context. As I've said on that article at length, much of the material that people are adding or removing is because it isn't included PROPERLY. Since the article has gone through 2 AfD's now, it is fairly safe, but it is still for the most part a crappily written article. Rather than just debating over including or excluding this quote, figure out how you might give a better balance of views on this Seamus story. I still haven't seen the enormous volumes of people who essentially give a "so what?" attitude to this story. It is written as a political attack piece at the moment. It has gotten better due to constant bleating from people trying to get editors to focus on improving it, but it still is pretty much stuck in the mire. Find sources, do research, balance the article, include those people who essentially say 'I could care less', which includes the PETA lady who was formerly quoted in the article as saying it was "torture". In short, don't edit war, get consensus, and don't expect that coming to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard will change editor behavior.  If someone is edit warring, politely explain why they shouldn't, and you could even ask a admin to lock the article again. The article isn't likely to go away, and most Americans don't care about the issue anyway. Just focus on getting it improved. -- Avanu (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As a participant who strongly believes the Treacher quote should be included -- part of my concern is that the Obama Eats Dogs meme article was deleted. If the Seamus incident is fair fodder for Wikipedia, the Romney camp's side should be as well.  Otherwise, you're just feeding claims of left-wing bias here.  One resolution I could support would be to move this article to "2012 Presidential campaign dog wars" or something along those lines.  Then include both sides.  But if it's going to be "We should include the negative Romney dog story, but suppress any mention of Obama dog-eating, which is not related at all", I'm going to have a big problem with that.  William Jockusch (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And I want to add, the way the debate is going, consensus is never going to happen. People won't even agree that the Seamus story and the Obama dog-eating story are related, even though one reached the media because of the other, and tons of stories all over the place have treated them jointly.  If we can't even reach consensus on a simple proposition like that, it is hopeless.  William Jockusch (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to the inclusion of the Jim Treacher comment for several reasons. First, I believe that it's not relevant to the Seamus incident. I think it is violates WP:coatrack to put a sentence attacking Barack Obama in an article about an incident about Mitt Romney and his dog. Wikipedia has a number of articles about political controversies (e.g., Lewinsky scandal, John McCain lobbyist controversy, Chappaquiddick incident), and none of them criticize another person's behavior as some sort of defense. For example, it would be inappropriate for the Lewinsky scandal article to have a sentence saying that Newt Gingrich also had a sex scandal during the same time period.

The other issue is the Obama Eats Dogs AfD decided that Jim Treacher's comments about Obama eating dogs was not notable, and that the article should be deleted. Many editors took part in the AfD discussion and there was  extensive debate about merging the Obama Eats Dogs article into the Seamus incident article. That argument was rejected, and the AfD's decision was to delete the article, and not to merge it with another article. In the two weeks since the AfD was concluded, there has been extensive edit warring regarding attempts to include Treacher's quote into the Seamus incident article. If the Obama Eats Dogs story becomes a more prominent controversy in the future, a discussion about adding it to a Wikipedia article would be warranted. However, nothing has changed in the last two weeks regarding this issue's notability, and I believe that the AfD's decision should stand. Debbie W. 17:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with the above is that it is not consistent with NPOV to include an attack on Romney that even Romney agreed had hurt him, yet simultaneously say that the counterattack that actually succeeded in diffusing the original issue is "not notable." Additionally, I have got to say I can't agree with your claim that "nothing has changed in the last two weeks" with regard to notability in light of this: William Jockusch (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated on the article talk page, I've pretty much ducked out of this article but I will comment here briefly. William's post is an example of why. We have a few editors who don't look at this as Wikipedia article but as an attack on Mitt Romney, and thus we must counter this attack on Mitt Romney by attacking Obama. I've explained on the talk page that this article is not about Obama eating dog meat as a 6 year old in Indonesia, but about Mitt Romney transporting a dog in 1983 in such a way that it attracted controversy and thus reliable sources for the topic. Yes, the article is negative because most coverage is negative, the incident itself is negative, and thus and this is to be expected, but in no way is the article an attack on Mitt Romney.

Some conservative commentators have decided that the best way to diffuse the situation is to use the Chewbacca defense, wherein rather than comment on the Seamus incident they attempt to distract gullible people into focusing on Obama instead. I can't blame them, it's obviously a good strategy as people not educated in formal logic will be unlikely to notice that it's a logical fallacy (I do doubt that said commentators are aware that they are committing a logical fallacy, and so I explain it via ignorance and not malice). However, WP as an encyclopedia should not be repeating logical fallacies simply because someone printed them. The use of an article about an incident involving Romney and a dog to discuss something Obama did as a child is a WP:COATRACK plain and simple; we need to use logic and WP:COMMONSENSE here.

Lastly, editors on this page seem to grossly misunderstand WP:NPOV to mean something akin to attaining a false balance, wherein if something negative is said about someone we must also point out negative things about their political opponents. I'm guessing I don't have to explain why this wrong or how it misrepresents NPOV. I'm not planning on continuing this discussion as I have a wall at home that doesn't have quite enough marks from my head, and so I need to spend my time fixing this, at least until the drywall cracks. S Æ don talk 20:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just stumbled upon a perfect example to illustrate my point. Today the Washington Post ran this story about Mitt Romney bullying some kid 50 years ago. The Dailycaller, which is one of the sources involved in this dispute published this retort that rightly points out inconsistencies in the Washpost story. Notice how this article doesn't go on to talk about some Obama stepping on some kid's foot as a child or some other story from Obama's past, but rather focuses on the actual topic at hand, which is an alleged bullying incident. Why is this the case in this article? Because there's obviously something to say about the topic and so there's no need to try and deflect the attention elsewhere. In the Seamus incident case, there was nothing to say about Romney's actions; people either don't care or they think it's messed up. Those who don't care aren't going to convince those who do care that it's not a big deal, so it's easier to just attempt to level the playing field with a red herring.

If we had an article about this story and if the only response from the right was to point to Obama bullying a kid rather than deal with the topic of Romney doing so, it would be asinine and downright ridiculous to say "In response to allegations that Romney bullied a homosexual teenager, conservatives pointed out that Obama bullied someone too, so there na nee na nee boo boo." S Æ don talk 21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The previous post illustrates the biggest problem I have with this debate. Let's just look at what happened here.  In her post, Debbie asserted that in the last two weeks, nothing has changed about the notability of the dog-eating claim.  I posted a reference to dispute that.  But no one from the other side agreed with or disagreed with my point.  You have the President of the United States discussing an issue.  The most powerful person in the world.  Does that make it more notable or not?  It would appear to be a simple question.  Are you interested in reaching consensus or not?  If not, then do you agree with my assertion is correct or not?  If you agree, then saying so, and supporting me on that question, would be a step towards civil debate.  It would cause me to believe that you are genuinely interested in achieving consensus.


 * Now, on to specific issues raised by your post. Just as I requested above that people on the other side agree or disagree with my assertions, rather than ignoring them, I will do you the courtesy of agreeing or disagreeing with the assertions you make in your post.  I will give you that respect.  I believe it is part of being civil.  However, I am not going to go into the non-dog-related part of it, as that would be too much of a diversion.
 * About the Chewbacca defense. If the Obama Eats Dogs meme were in a different notable location on Wikipedia, I would agree with you 100%.  I would absolutely agree that you are correct.  I will further agree with you that the Seamus story is notable criticism of Romney.  Therefore, it belongs on Wikipedia.


 * I disagree with your assertion that including an article about Seamus and an article about dog-eating would be "false" balance. I believe this would be a true balance.  This balance could be achieved either within one article, or by having two articles.  Either way, I would have no problem with it.  I also disagree with your assertion that my view of this mischaracterizes NPOV.  The reason I disagree is that if my opponents' views hold sway, there will be no high-visibility forum for my side of it.  The Seamus thing is mentioned both here and in the Romney article.  So to be balanced, we should mention dog eating both in its own article, and in the Obama article itself.  That would be a true balance.  Nothing false about it.


 * Now, about your assertion that by broadening the subject, I am committing a logical fallacy. If it were handed down from on high that the subject shall be thus and such, I would agree with you.  But it's not.  God has not revealed a new Commandment that this article must be about Romney/Seamus, as opposed to being about how Presidential candidates interact with dogs.  I would further note that the anti-Romney side has had no problem broadening the subject of the article when it suited them.  For example, until recently, the Axelrod tweet was in the article.  So at that point, it was about both Romney/Seamus and Obama/Bo.  The Axelrod tweet was removed shortly after I asserted that its inclusion was evidence that the Treacher tweet should also be included.


 * Lastly, your note that you are not going to see the debate out. I have got to say that I find that disappointing.  If my opponents make assertions about this and that, but do not stick around when they are challenged, and do not agree or disagree with the points I make, achieving consensus will remain impossible.  William Jockusch (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * William, I am going to address three issues that you brought up.


 * (1) White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD) comments -- the WHCD took place on April 28, 2012, whereas the Obama Eats Dogs AfD concluded on May 2, 2012. If you search through the AfD, you will notice that the WHCD comments are mentioned three times.  The issue of Obama's comments were addressed during the AfD discussion, and the decision was still to delete. Since the WHCD, I have not heard of any additional news about the dog eating episode that would make it notable.  Wikipedia's policy on the notability of events gives 5 factors in evaluating an event's notability -- (1) lasting effect, (2) geographic scope, (3) depth of coverage, (4) duration of coverage, and (5) diversity of sources.  Even with the WHCD comments, I believe that the dog eating story only meets requirement 5.  Everything in the news is not entitled to coverage by Wikipedia, and please note that there is no Wikipedia article about Romney's $10,000 wager that he proposed to Rick Perry, nor Romney criticism about cookies from a bakery in Pittsburgh (i.e., Cookiegate), nor his "I like to fire people" comments.


 * (2) Chewbacca defense -- the Obama Eats Dogs meme is mentioned in the Jim Treacher article. I know of no another Wikipedia article about a political controversy that includes a discussion about another politician behavior as a defense, mitigation, or justification of the original controversy.  If you have an example to the contrary, please correct me.


 * (3) False balance and NPOV -- Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view (NPOV) does not require that all opinions get an equal amount of coverage: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief." If the Seamus incident and the Obama Eats Dogs meme had equal media coverage and cultural influence, then both should get equal coverage in Wikipedia. However, that's not the case.  The Seamus incident has been in the news repeatedly since 2007, it has been covered by foreign newspapers, it has been mentioned in books, it has been cited in cultural analyses about Americans' treatment of their pets, two super PACs have been formed just around this issue, national polls have been taken on this issue, and when Diane Sawyer interviewed the Romneys, this was the issue that the most viewers inquired about.  Conversely, the Obama Eats Dogs meme has existed for a month, has not been covered by the foreign press, has not been mentioned in any books, has not been part of any cultural analyses, has not resulted in formation of any super PACs, has not been the subject of any polls, and has not been the main topic in any interview of Barack or Michelle Obama. Debbie W. 02:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Debbie, thank you for responding directly. I will answer in depth later.  But I just want to thank you for that.  William Jockusch (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * About the dinner and the date of the discussion. I accept your explanation.  I will note that you said two weeks, and I was responding to that specifically.  About your five factors.  (1) Lasting effect.  The lasting effect of the dog-eating has been to diffuse the Seamus issue for Romney.  Before it was a straight attack on Romney.  Now it is double-edged.  Obviously the duration has not yet been as long, but then again it hasn't had the chance yet.  (2) Geographic scope.  I disagree with your assertion that this has not made the foreign press.     Additionally, there has been plenty of coverage on CNN, which has worldwide reach.  About the interviews.  Romney makes himself available to left-leaning reporters like Diane Sawyer more often than Obama does the reverse.  I could be wrong, but I believe the last time Obama made himself available at a right-wing outfit was his Super Bowl 2011 interview with Bill O'Reilly.  So Romney has made himself more available to hostile press than Obama has.  And there are indicators of interest other than the ones you mentioned.  Such as Twitter, where Obama eating dogs was all over the place.  (3) Depth of coverage.  Dog-eating made the national news on CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, and even MSNBC where David Axelrod did his best to downplay it.  The Daily Beast -- not exactly a conservative site -- called it "meme of the week."  About the super PACs.  Consider this:   That makes it clear that Dogs Against Romney is more about the "against Romney" than the "dogs".  Books.  Dog-eating was mentioned in "dreams from my father," which sold millions of copies.  It sat there, unnoticed, until it exploded in April.  One month is not enough lead time for it to make more books.  Duration of coverage.  Well it hasn't really had the chance yet.  About expanding the subject.  The anti-Romney side had no problems expanding the subject with Axelrod's tweet.  It was taken out only when I brought up that it wasn't fair to include Axelrod's subject-expanding tweet but not Treacher's subject-expanding tweet.  So it appears to me that the "don't expand the subject" criterion is being applied selectively.  About Chewbacca.  I don't care if the dog eating is covered in the same article or a different prominent article.  But in light of the prior willingness (AFAIK uncontroversial) to expand the subject by including David Axelrod's tweet about how Obama treats dogs, it seems strange to object to expand the subject to Treacher's tweet about how Obama treats dogs.  Expanding the subject should either be fair game or not.  But if it's done selectively, as appears to be the case here, I call foul.William Jockusch (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * William, You bring up some good points that I previously missed, but there are a few areas where I disagree with your logic. Let's start with notability of events.
 * (1) Lasting effect -- I'm not convinced that this requirement has been meet, since Wikipedia says the following: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects." Even though it has led to the formation of 2 super PACs and been the subject of national polls, I am even not sure if the Seamus incident article fulfills the lasting effect requirement, and I acknowledged this during the AfD for Seamus. So, I'm pretty certain that the dog-eating story, which has had even less influence than the Seamus incident does not have a lasting effect, as defined by Wikipedia.
 * (2) (Geographic scope -- This is the first time that I saw any foreign articles about Obama's dog-eating, so it definitely meets the requirement.
 * (3) Depth of coverage -- This requirement is not met by coverage on cable news. Cable news is considered routine coverage, and this requirement is looking for more scholarly or analytic discussion. For example, if there were some news articles that discussed how people in countries that eat dog relate to the Obama dog-eating story, then the depth of coverage requirement might be met. I find the depth of coverage requirement the most subjective of the five, but unless you can show me an article about Obama's dog-eating that includes cultural or news analysis, then I don't think that the requirement is fulfilled.
 * (4) Duration of coverage -- I think we are in agreement that this requirement has NOT been met.
 * (5) Diversity of sources -- I think we are in agreement that this requirement has been meet.


 * Axelrod's tweet should not be part of the article. It is a political attack with no real intellectual context.  Unlike the other quotes in the article, it doesn't explain a person view of the 1983 road trip, but is just an attack on Mitt Romney.  I did not add this sentence to the article, but I admit that I should have removed it. However, you cannot justify the inclusion of Obama's dog-eating by the former inclusion of the Axelrod tweet.  One bad precedent does not allow another.  The "inclusion is not an indicator of notability" essay states: "A common argument used against the deletion of certain articles is that other articles similar to the one in question exist. Because of the openness of Wikipedia it is nearly impossible to manage the flow of articles. The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted. Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality because any individual may edit a page. For example, if there are 20 garage bands that have articles on Wikipedia, it is not a valid indicator that any other garage band deserves an article. Examining Wikipedia policy is more persuasive and practical than citing existing articles." Debbie W. 01:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to only now think it does not belong because it is quite obvious that it makes it clear that this is a political issue and the corresponding response is therefore required. I might be willing to believe your change of heart if you were not so insistant on making a big deal out of the Seamus incident in general.  Sometimes you have to deal with the consequences of your previous actions....much like you and the left is trying to do with Romney and Seamus.  Arzel (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you and others are trying to make it political so you can include the Obama meme. You failed to persuade others at the AfDs/merger discussions, so you're still pushing at the talkpage. You may not think Romney's character issue (highlighted by this incident) is worthy of coverage, or that it is somehow equivalent to what Obama did as a boy, but you are in the fringe minority. And as an aside, you posturizing about "making a big deal" and other polticial comments are hypocritical and dishonest. 64.134.183.120 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What an absurd argument to make since the majority of the article is regarding the political commentary of the event. Gail Collins, who kept this in the news by obsessing over the issue made sure to make political connection.  It would not even be an issue in the least if not for the political season.  It was a political story in 2008 and again in 2012.  The only hypocrites are people like you who claim out of one side of their mouth that this is a character issue that we should care about while at the same time say it is not a political issue.  Let me ask you something.  If it is not a political issue, then just why the hell does Romney's character matter?  Your transparent attempt to cloud the issue are just that transparent.  Don't get upset because so many people can see right through it.  Arzel (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's upset here? You're the one bending over backwards to try squeezing anti-Obama crap into an unrelated indicent about his political opponent. What's transparent here is your desperate attempt to reframe disagreement as 'illogical' or 'absurd' because you can't argue on the merits. And yes normal folks can separate character issues from the political bickering which you seem to relish. Real editors don't pick and choose what is political as it suits your POV-pushing. 76.17.120.94 (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Saedon has it completely right. And I'll reiterate, its about context. Obama joked at the correspondents' dinner about his dog problem also, and that is a perfect moment in the article to very briefly describe what he's referring to. It is in context there. But as Saedon says above, you can't simply say "BALANCED" by having a tit-for-tat. Every parent has heard the refrain "well, Billy's parents let him stay up until 10pm!" and the parent explains that just because someone else does it, doesn't mean it applies to their kid. It is sort of a parental WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately since this is a politically motivated story, that aspect of it should have the most coverage and honestly it should receive the most scrutiny as well. Currently the article text doesn't do that. It is very haphazard and simply tosses a quote or two in from various people without including any critical commentary, and by critical I don't mean necessarily that it disagrees, I simply mean that someone provided an analysis of the other person's motivations and whatnot. There is a huge contingent of "who cares" people, but those quotes are conveniently excluded in favor of quotes that play up the outrage. Neutral tone and balance mean that you provide a well researched article, not simply the scandalous side. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Claims that anybody is "making this political" by adding the Obama side don't correspond with reality. It has been political since day one.  Unless someone wants to make the argument that the Romney/Seamus story is motivated by something other than politics.  As my exchange with Debbie shows, there can be a genuine debate over notability, and progress can be made on that issue once we get past the mudslinging.  I also continue to believe that taking "the subject of the article" as a given is itself a questionable assumption.  For example, I see there is a "War on Women" article with the charming intro: The "War on Women" is a politically-charged, perjorative term used to describe Republican initiatives in federal and state legislatures that the Left argues are harmful to women.[1]   Clearly someone has defined the topic in a way that excludes the actions of certain Democrats that could also be construed as a war on women.  The point is that you can define "the topic of an article" in ways that favor one side or another.  Although it's less clear-cut than the one I just quoted, I think we have some element of that here. William Jockusch (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * References

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 16:52 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Raising a flag over the Reichstag


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

Content has been disputed in the past. Current deletions made without explanation.

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  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?

Have discussed issue at user's talk page, to no avail.


 * How do you think we can help?

Further eyes to help determine validity of recent deletions.

71.241.200.94 (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Raising a flag over the Reichstag discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * I've blocked the most recent disturber for 5RR (I didn't scroll down more). No doubt this is IP hopping. It's really "just" vandalism. I left a note on that IP's talk page but I don't think they have more to say than "bullshit", and I will semi-protect the page. If this continues, AIV and RFP is the ticket. Happy vacation to all and sundry, Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Greenbrier Ghost


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

story is not consistent. in the burial header, Zona is cremated. in the exhumation header, Zona is exhumed?

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  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?

Greenbrier Ghost discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Maybe adding contradict would be better than posting a dispute here.Curb Chain (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi


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

My contention: In the bias crimes trial of Dharum Ravi, the court ruled that the trial (and, therefore, the charges/crimes) and Clementi's suicide were not connected (so much so that Clementi's suicide note was not made available to the defense or the public). However, it appears that a political lobby is attempting to use this page in order to FORCE a connection, for their own ends (I suggest that those ends amount to highlighting a supposed higher than general population average LGBT-bullying problem by fabricating said connection). I have made several (and repeat) edits to remove all irrelevant content, e.g., that referencing Ravi or "LGBT cyberbullying", etc. However, someone (or some people) keeps replacing the text. I previously attempted to begin a discussion on same on the relevant Talk page. There were no legitimate takers, only people telling me I was making an illegitimate argument, doing it in the wrong place, wasting my time, and that I should stop. I believe that as Ravi's actions and the suicide have been officially deemed unconnected, the suicide (i.e., the subject of the article) should stand alone, should not "benefit", Wikiworthywise, by the notability of the bias trial, and, therefore, should be held to be an unnoteworthy suicide and not granted a Wiki page t all.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

It is possible that anyone who considers him or herself a homosexuals' rights activist would revise my edits without a moment's thought respecting the legitimacy of the article's making such a connection between Ravi's bias actions and the suicide.


 * 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  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?

Attempted to initiate a discussion on the relevant Talk page. Brought the issue to the attention of an administrator/volunteer arbiter and was directed here.


 * How do you think we can help?

Review the article. Examine whether Ravi is perhaps being libelled. Disallow people from revising all edits without giving a good reason (I gave my reasons upon making the edits. Nobody gave a reason for making revisions.)

Hypesmasher (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Tyler Clementi discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' As an uninvolved editor, I would like to point out that what "As I and other users have tried to say to you is that you can not get this article deleted trough its talk page. You have to go trough the AfD process if you want to stand a chance of getting the article deleted. Keeping on saying that the article isnt notable because this and that here on the talk page will get you nowhere unfortunatly" - BabbaQ is a valid statement. To start the proper discussion, simply make an AFD, A relevant discussion page will appear during which debate and consensus will occur. You asked "Why will it get me nowhere? Why won't it, at least, get me to a place where YOU either agree or disagree with me here, on Talk?" The reason is because the reasons (and counterarguments)for deletion have a proper place - the AFD page. So make an AFD page and make your arguments there. It's just following proper procedures. Since your purpose appears to be to get the page to be deleted, that is, indeed, in everyone's (including your) best interests. Hope this helped. &theta;v&xi;r    mag&xi;   contribs 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. And thank you for providing me with an opportunity to explain the real problem. The Suicide of Tyler Clementi is said to be a legitimate Wiki article due to the fact that it is "notable" according to Wiki's interpretation of that word. I contend that it is not notable. That it is run-of-the-mill. The only thing that makes the suicide notable is the fact that it took place a few days after the webcam events which resulted in charges being brought against Ravi and Wei. However, the court ruled that the suicide and the webcam events were not connected. Therefore, if all unconnected information (Ravi, webcam events, court case, general LGBT bullying, etc.) were to be removed from the article, the suicide would be notable only for its unnotableness. Yes, I want the article deleted completely, however, that's not going to happen until the unconnected information has been removed. I soon realised this, and altered my arguments with a view to first having the said illegitimate material removed. BabbaQ somehow found it expedient to continue to suggest that I begin an AfD (while others continued to suggest that I was wasting my time). I don't believe I am. The article on this ultimately unnotable suicide is chock full of illegitimate content. I want that content removed. Once that has been achieved, I will begin the AfD, and it will then succeed.--Hypesmasher (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The trial had very deep media coverage. The suicide was covered by media deeply as well, possibly because of the protest marches.Curb Chain (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can provide proper sourcing and explanation for why the information on the article is irrelevant, an AFD will succeed whether it is removed or not. After all, an AFD is also a talk page of its own. Any explanations you wish to provide to remove the information can simply be repeated on the AFD talk page for similar effect. If your arguments are solid, there should be no problem with using them to bolster your case on the AFD page. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe that the AFD will likely fail if the information you claim is irrelevant is allowed to remain. This is not true - your arguments for closing or keeping the page can still be made with a view to the information, and if you believe the data on the page is irrelevant and wrong, then it can also be explained on the AFD talk page.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 02:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The suicide's notability can be seen by its extensive coverage in major national and local newspapers and all the network news channels. For example, see the NY Times Index for Dharun Ravi and the

NY Times Index for Tyler Clementi. The President, the Governer, etc commented on it at the time. At the time, there had been a recent rash of 4 teenage suicides, most coming in the wake of bullying incidents. An effort called ["It Gets Better"] was started but really took off after Mr. Clementi's death. President Obama and others recorded messages and over 3.5 million watched, verified by youtube.com. Google used the effort as part of its TV advertising effort to show how important the web was. A critical factor in notability is a reasonable amount of coverage and it got much more than that. --Javaweb (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
 * @Overmage... First, the format details your fancy username formatting brings with it doesn't help with respect to readability of the discussion in Edit mode. Second, perhaps you're correct, however, I've chosen to go this route.--Hypesmasher (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @CurbChain and JavaWeb... The suicide was only covered due to the yellow media deciding to make a connection between it and the webcam actions. In reality, no hard evidence for such a connection was ever manifest. The suicide note was withheld from both the defense and the public (in court) on the grounds that the two events were NOT connected. Therefore, the only official ruling we have to go on is that there was no connection, and, therefore, all "notability" generated with respect to the suicide, via the hyping of that non-existent connection by the media, must be seen to have been illegitimate, and "notability" that should be solely attributed to the court case. In fact, the only thing that makes either event, the webcam actions or the suicide, notable is the spurious connection-making itself. My gripe is that this illegitimate connection-making is being furthered here on Wiki by the very presence of this article. That is, take away the webcam incidents and we'd have never have heard of the suicide; take away the suicide and we'd have never have heard of the webcam incidents. As it stands, Wiki is allowing spurious and yellow journalism to inform its facts (the WP Truth page more or less states that if it has been in mainstream print it may be called a verifiable fact - an utterly ridiculous notion). As far as we know, and as far as the public record is concerned, Ravi did NOT cause Clementi to commit suicide. The article though, tells an opposite story, via weasel-editing (coined!), backed up by nothing more than press speculation and political expediency and points-scoring. The bottom line is that the article should not be permitted to even hint as to the motive for Clementi taking his own life without having some facts to back that up. That the suicide note was not permitted as evidence in court tells us that it didn't include mention of the webcam or any other of Ravi's actions as a causal factor. Imagine YOU had had an argument with Clementi a week before he died and Wiki permitted an article that pointedly pointed to YOU as having been responsible for his suicide.--Hypesmasher (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like readers to consider the fact that Ravi's sentence was 30 days in prison. Apparently, if we are to believe the overriding point being made by the editors of the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article, he received this sentence for having, to all intents and purposes, bullied Tyler Clementi to death. Can we expect public outrage over that? Probably not, given that the court found NO connection between the two issues. That's a fact. A real fact. And the only one that need follow the first sentence in the present article. Basically, Tyler Clementi committed suicide, here, on this date... and Dharum Ravi had nothing to do with that. That's not what I get from the article. What do you get from it?--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The pertinent questions here are these: Upon reading the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article, do you get an overwhelming sense that the suicide was connected, and, in fact, directly caused, by Dharum Ravi's webcam actions? And do you get the sense that Ravi's actions were motivated by a desire to bully Clementi based on his sexual orientation. If so, and given the FACT that the court ruled that Clementi's suicide and Ravi's actions were entirely UNconnected, do you feel that an injustice is being perpetrated on Ravi, via this Wiki article?

Question 1. Answer Yes or No. If Yes, go to question 2. Question 2. Answer Yes or No. If Yes, VOCALLY support (here) removal of all irrelevant information in the article.

There's no need for a bureaucratic song and dance. --Hypesmasher (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Discussion
It should be noted that the editor raising this dispute had previously attempted to list the article at AfD, and had that imperfect nomination reverted. I believe the correct approach should have been to edit that nomination to correct it on the 'once listed must be discussed' principle. Accordingly I have made a procedural nomination at Articles for deletion/Suicide of Tyler Clementi (2nd nomination) and invite all parties here and elsewhere, especially the editor who wished for its discussion for deletion, to make their views known there. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This may have been correct, however, I believe it is now too late. The discussion has already begun here. Moving it somewhere else will now be counterproductive. I am prepared to accept a Suicide of Tyler Clementi article with all irrelevant information removed. As soon as that is achieved, I am sure a subsequent AfD will be successful. --Hypesmasher (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Further to that, I believe there is a more general issue to be discussed here (using this specific article as a test case), and that is Spurious Connection-making, hypothetically e.g., littering the Vegetarian article with "facts" about Adolf Hitler, on the grounds that he reportedly was one, and with a view to denigrating that demographic. It shouldn't be permitted.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lastly, editor Fiddle Faddle (who has suggested this change of venue) lists (among other things) on his Userpage...


 * This user is proudly out of the closet and gay.
 * This user is a supporter of the LGBT community.
 * This user supports equal rights for LGBT people.


 * These disclosures make me suspicious of Fiddle Faddle's true motives for interfering here and suggesting this disruptive venue change. I suggest that Fiddle Faddle perhaps has a conflict of interest which should disallow him or her from even nominating the AfD for this specific article at this specific point in time.--Hypesmasher (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Discrediting another user's opinions simply because of their sexual orientation is not going to win anyone over. You can argue whether this article passes WP:N and how all the other editors misinterpret it somehow, but I see you have not once tried to apply Wikipedia's policies in your arguments. Rather, you seem to apply your own standards of what passes as an article in a mission to "smash hypes".--Atlan (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe you are correct that discrediting another's opinions based on their sexual orientation is not going to win anyone over. However, that's not what I did, is it? I'm very sure that that was easier to see than you appear to be indicating, given that the words don't express that idea in any shape or form. For your specific benefit, I'll repeat myself. What I actually said was that I suspected Fiddle Faddle's motives for making a disruptive venue change at this point in time, and nominating an article that he or she is probably very personally supportive of for an AfD at all. I have made no secret of the fact (on the article's Talk page) that I believe the article has been edited in its present form with a view to furthering an LGBT rights (anti-"bullying") agenda, via making, or continuing, a spurious (non-existant) connection between the webcam events and the suicide. That Fiddle Faddle would choose to be overly officious and "helpful" to my case, by nominating the article for AfD (in my stead) is suspicious to me, given his or her disclosed POLITICAL biases.


 * As for applying Wiki's policies in my arguments, I see no benefit in doing so, given that Wiki only requires that something has been published in a mainstream media outlet in order for it to be "verifiable". Of course, the MSM has extensively covered the connection between the webcams and the suicide. Unfortunately, no such connection ever existed IN (officially-recognized) FACT. Perhaps, via this discussion, we can generate a change in policy. Having always done things a certain way is no good reason for continuing to do so.--Hypesmasher (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not support abuse based upon sexual orientation, nor do I support bullies. I do, howveer, support Wikipedia's policies. I am within a millimetre of asking for a full comment upon your behaviour and comments, and what I perceive to be your abuse towards me based upon my sexual orientation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, I shall try to bring this back to what I understand the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for. See page header above. First: article content. There is an AfD in process, and all comments about the existence of the article go there. Not here. They will not be read here. The question of potential libel of a living person has been mentioned. That goes to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Second: editor behaviour. One person may be guilty of incivility, more than the other. Nevertheless, both of you can help to de-escalate. Try not to interact with each other for a couple of days. Then, either or both of you, if you think there is still a problem, could take out a a request for comment upon a user. Mediation is another option. But not now. In a couple of days or perhaps a week. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see two issues here that need to be addressed. First, things are getting heated. Along with Itsmejudith, I strongly suggest that Hypesmasher and Fiddle Faddle take at least 48 hours off (trust me, the issues will still be here) from this topic and from each other, and then come back and make a fresh start (meaning "don't refer to the pre-cooling-off discussion - wait for the other editor to say whatever it is again"). Second, there is a policy that needs to be explained: Bias and/or Conflict of Interest -- real or imagined -- does not disqualify one from nominating an article for deletion at AfD. You need a good reason for deletion, but that is always true. Talking about someones sexual orientation is almost never appropriate. If you want to make a charge of bias, give us a diff to a particular edit that you think shows bias and we will examine that edit the same way no matter who the author is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Itsmejudith and Guy Macon for your input and advice. I don't agree that things are getting heated or that a cooling of period would serve any purpose. I resent any twisting of my words in reference to my complaint regarding Fiddle Faddle's possible lack of neutrality and perverse motives for having "helped" me nominate an AfD. I stand by every word of that complaint as it involves Fiddle Faddle's expressed and very relevant POLITICAL bias, and has nothing to do with his or her sexual orientation. I included Fiddle Faddle's notice of his or her actual sexual orientation to indicate potential emotional extent of those admitted POLITICAL biases. Again, all you both have said amounts to "Stop or delay pursuing this" and "You're pursuing it in the wrong place". I'm getting a little tired of those responses in lieu of actual productive input into the debate. I realise that many of you enjoy playing Wikiworld Bureaucracy Trivia, but I would appreciate you not doing it on this particular section. For me, the discussion of whether the Suicide of Tyler Clementi article contains a preponderance of illegitimate and impertinent material is still taking place here, and is ongoing and open to all relevant input, including mine and Fiddle Faddle's.--Hypesmasher (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fiddle Faddle, please go ahead with taking any action you see fit. If I'm not allowed to make the claims I have (i.e., that I believe you are taking steps to confuse the issue and disrupt and prevent productive discussion on the merits of including the disputed material, using Wikibureaucracy, and driven by your admitted personal political biases, with a view to furthering what I suspect to be the LGBT political agenda of forcing/continuing an, in reality, nonexistent link between Ravi's actions and Clementi's suicide), then there is no point in my being here anyway. In my view, the article's editors are (consciously or not) clearly trying to illegitimately further that agenda, and you have admitted that you are supportive of the idea of LGBT rights (I saw nothing on your page that suggested you were a supporter of either the truth, or a human being's right to a fair trial and to not be hounded with continued ruled false accusations after the conclusion of that trial).--Hypesmasher (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's closing note: With the content issue, i.e. notability, being discussed at AfD and this discussion having devolved into discussion of one another, rather than the article or its content, this is no longer appropriate for DRN. If you have complaint's about one another's conduct, take them to WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or WP:ARBCOM, but the guidelines of this noticeboard prohibit such discussions. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christians


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

There is a concerted deletion of mention of claims to Jewish origin by a community of ancient christians from Kerala, India. The said community is called as Malabar Nasrani a.k.a Nasrani Mappila. Nasrani is the Hebrew word for Jewish Christianity. It was the Portuguese invaders of Kerala who started calling the Nasranis as Saint Thomas Christians because they hated any Jewish reference to the a supposed christian community. Anyway The naming is a minor dispute within the larger dispute of the deletion of any cited mention of claims to Jewish descent of the Nasranis a.k.a Malabala Mappila a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians. I had put up quotes from Scholars from Hebrew University Jerusalem and also cited from research work from scholar from University of Texas. Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem mentions in her papers that the Northists ( a sub group of the Nasranis) have claims of Jewish origins. She also quotes in her paper about the claim that Saint Thomas the apostle converted members of the Jewish diaspora settled in the Malabar Coast (Kerala). I have given all these quotes with page numbers from the peer reviewed academic papers at the talk page of the article. Now editors are constantly deleting text that mentions the claim of the community to Jewish descent. Why or how would you justify deletion of text when I have given citation or page numbers from the academic research papers. The editors state that I do not know english and that I am misinterpreting the quote. To this I told the editor that since he/she knows better english than me then please help the collaborative wikipedia editing by rewording the text so that the misinterpretation is removed. But the requested rewording did not happen. I have given references and quotes. Why would the editor keep on deleting the text and not allow rewording. Clearly the research authors have mentioned about the claims of jewish origins of the Nasranis Christians (a.k.a Nasrani Mappila a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians). With proper citations given, it is definitely legitimate to mention about the claims of jewish descent of the Nasrani people. How could the editors keep on deleting mention of the claim of jewish origin of the people when proper citation with page numbers have been provided. Does that mean that no mention of claims of Jewish origin should be made even though scholars have stated so, just because the editors have an agenda. The editors who are reverting have administrative powers. I think they are misusing their administrative powers. I wonder whether a fair dispute resolution would happen given that the editors who are reverting are elites of the wikipedia. Even though wikipedia claims to treat all editors equally it does not seem so with the constant deletion of the cited passages and the degrading way in which the editor ridicules me by stating that I do not know to interpret english. Anyway I am following the procedure of the wikipedia by stating it on dispute resolution. A lot of discussion regarding the deltion has already happened on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians under the sub heading Jewish descent. Please help, if you would be fair to all editors equally. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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  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?

Tried to have talk regarding the constant deletion of referenced passages. But editors with administrative powers keep on deleting without any discussions. There seems to be concerted grouping of editors with an agenda.


 * How do you think we can help?

Since I have mentioned peer reviewed academic journal papers. It is most legitimate to mention the information form the journal papers on wikipedia. If rewording is needed then so be it. The Dispute resolution could either let the information be mentioned as I put it up WITH ACADEMIC CITATIONS or help put the information on wikipedia with rewording if that is indeed the problem But completely deleting materials that are backed with legitimate citations from Peer reviewed academic journals is not justified. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin klein (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Procedural comment - Despite the initiator's declaration above, it seems that I have only just been notified of this discussion. This is nearly a week after it was initiated. Furthermore, there are others who were involved in the discussion at Talk:Saint Thomas Christians and they appear neither to have been named nor notified. I am away from Friday 18 May while Sunday 20 May, and perhaps until the 21st. Right now, all I can say is that consensus at the talk page was against inclusion, for a variety of reasons. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Addendum - oh, and that the initiator has continued to reinstate the disputed material at Saint Thomas Christians despite starting this discussion. Examples are here, here and (almost certainly) the one referred to in the removal here. If there are new sources etc then the discussion needs to go back to the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I have only just now notified the editor. Yes there are others involved. But they seem to work in tandem. So I listed and informed the editor who messaged me on my talk page. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I did make two edits but the edit here was added by a new editor (it seems) User:JacobYohannan on 11th May 2012, could be a sock puppet, but then its not me or mine. Initially the above editor Sitush had agreed to reword the matter in contention but then when there was lot of sock puppetry going on the editor said that rewording would not be done. It was as though the editor was blaming me for the sock puppetry. No the sock puppets are not mine. I dont need to use them. I have voiced out my views as I am doing so now. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think now it's time to discuss the subject based on sources. Robin klein tries to add this(diff:) view, supported with Ref:Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16 p175-196. However, as far I know, the claim of the author that "The Northists also have a tradition that claims to be descendants of Jewish people converted by Thomas the Apostle in the Malabar Coast" is arbitrary and also not supported by any other WP:RSs. The author further proceeds with a few assumptions which also has not yet found a place in any other WP:RSs. The tradition of Northist faction of Saint Thomas Christians is that they are the high-caste converts from indigenous people, and of course, this tradition has not yet found any documentary evidences. -- AshLey  Msg 07:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've only just learned of this; I suppose I'm one of the editors Robin accuses of working "in tandem" and "misusing their administrative powers". Unfortunately, for the last 6 months or so Robin has developed a habit of inserting and re-inserting problematic material into the article, and then flying off the handle when others disagree with them, slinging baseless accusations of sock puppetry, vandalism, bigotry, and abuse. See, for example: This is not the behavior of someone who genuinely wants to work together to resolve a content issue.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Cúchullain comment I've only had the occasional eye/drop in on the article over the last 6 months, but on almost every time I see a pattern, unfortunately similar to what Cúchullain is describing. No matter how sincerely some Saint Thomas Christians believe they have Jewish ethnicity, it needs to be established from WP:RS that (i) such a legend/belief exists, (ii) let alone that there's any factual basis. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is WP:RS for the claims of Kerala Syrian Christian community that the first people to be converted by Saint Thomas the apostle were of Jewish heritage. This is cited in Menachery and also in several peer reviewed research journals. I have already presented some of the sources with citations. They are stated on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians and are also stated below in the discussion section. The traditional song of the said people that is the 'Saint Thomas Christians' a.k.a. Nasranis a.k.a. 'syrian christians' called as "RAMBAN song" states that according to traditional beliefs the first people converted by Apostle Thomas in the Malabar coast were Jewish people in the Malabar. Here is the reference (The Song of Thomas Ramban" in Menachery G (ed); (1998) "The Indian Church History Classics", Vol. I, The Nazranies, Ollur, 1998. [ISBN 81-87133-05-8]). It needs to be stated here that User:In ictu oculi is not a neutral on looker of this entire conflict as he claims to be. He has taken part in discussion before in previous conflict on the talk page over the past 7 months or so. You could please check the talk page history of the article Saint Thomas Christians and also the talk page history of the article Syrian Malabar Nasrani which was renamed to Saint Thomas Christians following discussion by the editors. He cannot claim to be neutral onlooker and claim to give neutral view on the dispute. To repeat some of the sources cited further below in this discussion section. The peer reviewed research paper by Prof Shalva Weil (1982) states in page 181 to quote: "..it should be pointed out that the tradition of Jewish origin or Jewish connections in Kerala is preserved not only by the Cnanite or Southist group but also by the wider group of Syrian Christians, or Northists" (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196. She further goes on to state the content of the claim of the community in page no 182 in the quote "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196). There are more WP:RS sources that have been cited further below in this discussion section, that states evidence for the existence of claims by the Saint Thomas Christians a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis to Jewish Heritage. Thanks Robin klein (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above editor (User:Ashley thomas80) states that HE finds the statement by Shalva Weil as "arbitrary". Yes I am sure he does. But then that is his personal opinion. While Shalva Weil has published her assertions in a Peer Reviewed Academic Journal. WP:RSs are Peer reviewed research papers in international research journals. Peer reviewed scholarship on Malabar Nasranis indicate to jewish heritage of the Nasranis It is no wonder User:Ashley thomas80 keeps on mentioning and refering profusely to self published sources or sources that are over 100 years old. Obviously his reliance on self publications and sources over 100 years old betrays his agenda. Self published works in India do not mention peer reviewed international papers or sources as they are interested in casteist agenda of claiming a Brahmin descent. Peer reviewed research papers by international scholars on Malabar Nasranis either do not mention brahmin myth at all or even if it is mentioned, it is stated with the additional comment that modern research shows that brahmins arrived in kerala in CE 7th-8th century while Jewish Nasrani tradition in malabar coast exists from the earliest days of christianity. Peer reviewed research papers by international scholars indicate a Jewish heritage of Nasranis. These include:


 * Shalva Weil’s paper in a highly referenced and cited peer reviewed research Journal ‘Contribuions to Indian Sociology”.  quote from Shalva Weil  "St. Thomas retired to the Jewish quarter in Cranganore, where he took up residence. Apparently, St. Thomas regularly attended synagogue where he preached about Jesus, the Messiah. He explained to the Jews the meaning of the Scripture and he spoke to them of Jesus, his miracles, of his death, of his resurrection. And many believed. Rabbi Paul demanded baptism ... and other families followed his example. And the Jews who remained obdurate gave the numerous Christians the name Nazarins." (from Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16. pages 175-196).


 * Research work on Thomas christians by Kerstin Neumann from Marburg University Germany; (1998) In her work Kerstin Neumann (1998) "Mond, Gott Siva und heiliger Thomas: Die religiöse Gemeinschaft der Knanaya in Kerala" Universität Marburg in page 78-79  she states  "Der Apostel Thomas habe nach seiner Ankunft in Kerala aus der Gemeinschaft der Juden seine ersten Konversionserfolge erzielt. Tatsächlich sind die Orte christlicher Siedlungen zum großen Teil mit denen der jüdischen Gemeinschaften identisch oder liegen ganz in der Nähe." (after his arrival in the Malabar Coast Apostle Thomas first converted the Jewish people in the Malabar Coast. All the major sites of early nasrani centres in Malabar coast were in the same places as Jewish settlements.)


 * Weil, Shalva(2009)'THE PLACE OF ALWAYE IN MODERN COCHIN JEWISH HISTORY',Journal of Modern JewishStudies,8:3,319 — 335


 * Prof Nathan Katz from Florida International University (in several of his publication on Cochin Jews including the peer reviewed research paper Katz N (2005) The Historical Traditions of the Jews of Kochi.” Studies in History 21, 127 147)


 * In the paper Katz N & Goldberg E. S. (1989) 'Asceticism and Caste in the Passover Observances of the Cochin Jews', Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 53-82 Published by: Oxford University Press the authors Katz N & Goldberg from Florida International University states to quote "The earliest external evidence of their home on the Malabar coast is found in the writings of Eusebius, the third century bishop of Caeseria, who related the story of the Alexandrian, Pantaenus, who reported seeing a copy of the Gospel of Matthew "in the language of the Hebrews" in India around 181 CE (hebraio-n grammosi ttn tou Matthaiou kataleipsai graphin), which Pantaenus attributed to the first-century mission of St. Bartholomew (Eusebius, 1959:1, 462-463). If Eusebius was right, then we have evidence for the existence of Aramaic- (or Hebrew-) speaking people, who could only be Jews or Jewish Christians, in India in the first century. This would roughly corroborate the indigenous histories of both the Cochin Jews, who claim to have arrived in India at the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and the ancient Syrian Christian community, who hold they were founded by St. Thomas in 55 CE. Their folklore indicates that St. Thomas came to India with the specific purpose of preaching to the Jews there."


 * Ross, I. J. (1979) "Ritual and Music in South India: Syrian Christian Liturgical Music in Kerala." Asian Music. 11 (1): 80-98) quote from the paper  "Ritual and music form a close relationship in the life of the Syrian-Christian community. Similarities between the rites and customs of the Syrian Christians and the Jews of Kerala reflect a possible common origin in the ancient Middle East, and serve as heuristic evidence in support of the historical claims of both communities."


 * There was a consensus on the statement regarding Nasranis as descendants of locals and jewish converts, which remained so for months. It was removed by Cuchullain after months when there was lots of wikification being done by Sitush. Why was it removed after months. You accuse me of disruptive behavior over the past 6 months. That is your point of view. In my point of view I feel that you have been disruptive for the past 6 months.  Of course your opinion holds more weight which is apparent and clear.   The editors are preventing the addition of any information regarding Jewish tradition and heritage of the Nasranis on the pretext of "no consensus". In this way people with agenda could remove all valid information from peer reviewed sources just because they do not like what is being stated. "no consensus" cannot be used as a pretext to stop editors from including information that is backed by valid peer reviewed journal papers. The papers cited above including the one by Shalva Weil - Weil, S. (1982)"Symmetry between Christians and Jews in India: The Cananite Christians and Cochin Jews in Kerala. in Contributions to Indian Sociology,16 p175-196.'' are research papers published in peer reviewed research journals. It is as much a WP:RS as can get. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think, it's a balanced statement compared to others. Here the author points to the possibility of the existence of Jews "or" Jewish Christians in Malabar coast in 1st century CE. The author also notes that it corroborates a folklore of Syrian Christians indicating the arrival St. Thomas to India with the specific purpose of preaching to the Jews there. Unfortunately we can't use this information to support the "Jewish lineage" of Northists. Above, I have cited this one:  - to state the tradition of Northists, not any "100 years old self published one". I could cite 10 or more WP:RSs to support "the tradition of Northists" which claims "the conversion of Hindu upper-castes". It is the legend of Northists and we need not have to analyse it's veracity now. Arrival of brahmins to Kerala is also a controversial subject like this and if you are interested, we could discuss it in Talk:Nambudiri. Robin, I have already told you that in my personal opinion, some Jewish admixture with indigenous people can't be ruled out. But it's not the tradition of Northists, only a subject of advanced research. You have cited some research papers, but it seems, they have taken some assumptions without giving much stress on evidences -- AshLey  Msg 09:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the above citations, Robin klein has not yet established this claim: "The Northists also have a tradition that claims to be descendants of Jewish people converted by Thomas the Apostle in the Malabar Coast". As Nathan Katz clarifies "...If Eusebius was right, then we have evidence for the existence of Aramaic- (or Hebrew-) speaking people, who could only be Jews or Jewish Christians, in India in the first century. This would roughly corroborate the indigenous histories of both the Cochin Jews, who claim to have arrived in India at the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, and the ancient Syrian Christian community, who hold they were founded by St. Thomas in 55 CE. Their folklore indicates that St. Thomas came to India with the specific purpose of preaching to the Jews there."


 * Thanks User:Ashley thomas80 for the response. What do these statements mean from Katz & Goldberg (1989)"....we have evidence for the existence of Aramaic- (or Hebrew-) speaking people, who could only be Jews or Jewish Christians, in India in the first century." "......Syrian Christian community .... Their folklore indicates that St. Thomas came to India with the specific purpose of preaching to the Jews there" please explain. thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jews or Jewish Christians - We have enough WP:RSs to support the claim that there were Jews in Malabar coast in the 1st century. So the author has to clarify the meaning of "or" in the above statement.
 * The folklore: Here the author may be mentioning "Ramban Songs". Please see here, this folklore suggests the presence of 40 Jewish Christians among the 1st converts in the Malabar coast, along with thousands of Hindu upper-caste people including Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Nairs, and Chettiars. You have already blocked me from mentioning the name of Hindu-castes, but at the same time so adamantly attempts to mention the case of "Jewish converts". Do you feel it's a neutral view? Moreover, it's just a folklore which in itself doesn't form the tradition of Northists because none of the Northist family is claiming Jewish lineage. Each and every Northist family claims Brahmin, Kshatriya* or Nair lineage only.(See Fuller, 1986) Robin klein activities in many articles have made me to conclude that he belongs to the Southist division who claim Jewish lineage, and here he is adamantly trying to prove that Northists are also Jews. From the Ramban songs, only Jewish case has been cherry picked. At the same time, Robin klein has blocked me from mentioning the case of Brahmins or any other caste. I've also deliberately avoided mentioning the Hindu-caste names in Saint Thomas Christians to avoid an edit-war. Cúchullain also once guided me to avoid inserting un-reliable information like this, and I obliged in order to keep the quality of the article. So, we can't allow the things to move out of equilibrium here. If Jews are there, other castes also will be mentioned. Many WP:RS are there to support. Better, we have to concentrate in facts, not in folklores ! -- AshLey  Msg 16:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear User:Ashley thomas80, please do not blame me for everything. It has become fashionable here to blame me for everything. I am afraid that you are forgetting that I did not block you from mentioning hindu caste. I was the one who wrote about the hindu caste along with the disclaimer as is ALWAYS done in research papers that modern research shows that Brahmins arrived in the 7th-8th century CE. You agreed to this as well. We never had a problem with this. It was User:Cuchullain who removed the entire passage of Hindu caste as he did not want the reference of Prof Dr. Veluthat (1978) from Mysore University, India. It was removed with the consensus between the three of us that the NPOV statement would be that the Syrian christians claim descent from locals and converted Jews. After months this statement that was agreed upon with consensus was deleted. If I had removed a statement after months I would have been banned or blocked. But it seems on the wikipedia there are different rules for different people. So Please stop blaming me for things I have not done. And yes I am not talking about folklore. I am presenting research papers citations from researchers who have corroborated heuristic evidence for the jewish heritage of the Syrian Malabar Nasranis. Thanks Robin klein (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend any more time rehashing the content issue here. It seems there is general accord among everyone else who has been active at the article recently besides Robin. The fact that Robin continues to engage in these baseless and unproductive recriminations even in comments asserting their own innocence says much about their general attitude at this article.Cúchullain t/ c 04:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Robin, We both have an insider's view in this regard, hence not free from bias. However, I trust, you also can't deny the improvement in the quality of the article due to the active involvement of many experienced Wikipedians and many of them are blamed here irrespective of their significant contributions. OK, now you have a single issue, the article needs to mention that "The Northists also have a tradition that claims to be descendants of Jewish people converted by Thomas the Apostle in the Malabar Coast". But all the sources you cited suggests only this much: "A traditional song of STCs suggests that Jewish presence in Malabar coast paved the way for St. Thomas to there and he evangelized a few Jews along with others." But here too, we are cherry picking the Jewish case from "Ramban Songs" while the ethnicity of the majority is just ignored. So it's better to avoid according to the consensus. -- AshLey  Msg 08:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Traditional claim of the Malabar Nasranis a.k.a. Saint Thomas Christians as stated in the Ramban legend is that Saint Thomas the apostle came to the Malabar coast to convert Jews and subsequently converted Jewish people and also locals. The editors mention about the conversion of the locals in the article but the editors delete the mention of Jewish conversion and seek to justify it in the pretext of consensus. Who is doing cherry picking?? You have mentioned about the conversion of the locals and continue to delete about the arrival of Saint Thomas the apostle to the malabar coast in order to convert Jews, His arrival with the Jewish merchant Haban, The first conversion of the Jewish flute playing girl, the conversion of the Jewish settlers in Cranganore under the leadership of Rabbi Paul. All of which are traditional claims regarding Jewish conversion by Apostle Thomas in the Malabar coast. You mention the conversion of locals as part of traditional claim of conversion. Yet you systematically delete the mention of Jewish conversion and seek to defend it in the pretext of consensus. Who is doing cherry picking?? All the peer reviewed research papers (WP:RS) mention the arrival of Saint Thomas the apostle to the malabar coast to convert jews and the subsequent conversion of the Jews. Yet you only mention about the conversion of the locals. thanks Robin klein (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jews, who had settled in Malabar from 7th century BCE, could also be considered as local people along with Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Nairs and Chettiyars, since all the ethnic groups mentioned here settled in Malabar at different points of time. None of them are aboriginals. -- AshLey  Msg 08:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Malabar Jews and Malabar Nasranis were trading diaspora on account of their Jewish origin and were given copper plates grants as immigrant trading settlers. thanks Robin klein (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Massoud


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

Disagreement over an edit that attempted to reduce an overlong quotefarm to a brief summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Shah_Massoud&diff=492005743&oldid=492000710]. In particular, the question is whether the statement at the beginning of the second paragraph involved, A 2005 report by Afghanistan Justice Project [...] describes him [i.e. Massoud] as indirectly responsible for an ethnically motivated massacre and mass rape committed by his forces on taking the suburb of Afshar in February 1993, arguing that he and his subcommanders failed to prevent atrocities that they could have foreseen is a fair summary of this source, p.82f.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Article is currently protected because of JCAla's vehement opposition to this edit.

Yes.
 * ''Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute?

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

Debate can be seen at Talk:Ahmad Shah Massoud


 * How do you think we can help?

Check the source and tell us if it was fairly summarized.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The two points of contention with Fut.Perf. version are
 * 1) Ittihad-i Islami were not "Massoud's forces" but the forces of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf. Ittihad-i Islami was created by Abdul Rasul Sayyaf in the 1980s and still exists today. It is purely Sayyaf's party/militia which back then was allied to the Islamic State. Massoud's forces were (and it is generally understood that Massoud's forces are) Shura-e Nazar/Jamiat-e Islami. Shura-e Nazar according to the source did not commit "mass rape" and "massacre". Thus it would be a falsification of the source to say so.
 * 2) Responsibility needs to be more explicitly elaborated on as failing to take effective measures to prevent or stop abuses although ordering a halt which didn't prove effective.

I suggest to
 * 1) replace "his [Massoud's] forces" with "Ittihad-i Islami forces" (exactly as mentioned in the source), the source under the section "Rape by Ittihad forces" (and there is no other section on rape in Afshar) explicitly calls them "Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami forces" (and NOT "Massoud's forces") and it repeatedly says "commanders affiliated to Sayyaf" or "Sayyaf's commanders" or "troops affiliated to Sayyaf", and
 * 2) to clarify what responsibility means in this case namely, "failing to take effective measures to prevent or stop atrocities although ordering a halt (without success)".

"The forces that launched the [Afshar operation] all formally belonged to the ministry of defense of the ISA. The minister of defense and de facto commander-in-chief of the ISA at the time of the Afshar operation was Ahmad Shah Massoud. He had overall responsibility for planning and command of military operations. He directly controlled the Jamiat-i Islami units and indirectly controlled the Ittihad-i Islami units."

"Ittihad forces played a major role in the assault [Afshar operation], working directly under Sayyaf and receiving pay from him. The Ittihad forces were not fully absorbed into the ministry of defense [of Massoud], but were operating in coordination with it."

"Although the Ittihad units had been given Afghan Army formation numbers, commanders in the field took their orders from senior Ittihad commanders and Sayyaf himself. Sayyaf acted as the de facto general commander of Ittihad forces during the operation"

"Rape by Ittihad forces"

"During the Afshar operation, Sayyaf’s Ittihad-i Islami forces used rape and other assaults on civilians to drive the civilian population from the area. The Afghanistan Justice Project interviewed many witnesses who described incidents of rape by Ittihad forces during the Afshar operation. Witness M. (see statement above) was injured in the hand and leg when Ittihad soldiers ... The Ittihad troops ... Witness Sh. stated that after capturing Afshar, Ittehad-i Islami troops ..."

"Summary executions" "Witnesses interviewed by the Afghanistan Justice Project stated that a group of Hizb-i Wahdat soldiers was taken prisoner from Wahdat headquarters at the Social Science Institute by Ittihad-i Islami forces on February 11. In addition to these, a large number of civilian men and suspected Wahdat militants were arrested from the Afshar area after Ittihad captured it. The number taken is not known. One group of Hazara prisoners held by Ittihad-i Islami was subsequently used by the Ittihad commanders to undertake burial of the dead from the Afshar operation, after one week. This group of witnesses has reported that their relatives were among the civilian and military prisoners taken by Ittihad who subsequently disappeared and are believed to have been summarily executed by Ittihad forces. The Afghanistan Justice Project has been able to obtain only a few of the names of the victims. Some other men were taken from their homes. Witness A told the Afghanistan Justice Project ... armed men – who were from Sayyaf and from Jamiat – were looting all the houses. Sayyaf’s people spoke Pushto; Jamiat spoke Dari. I sent my family to another place and I stayed at the house. At about 11:00 a.m. a commander named Izatullah (from Ittihad) came to the house ... Witness B told the Afghanistan Justice Project that Ittihad-i Islami troops had beaten her and arrested her unarmed husband ... Witness C told the Afghanistan Justice Project that the soldiers searched the houses looking for men. “I was taken to '''Paghman. [base of Ittihad] ... Witness M. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that at 7:.00 in the morning, when Ittihad-i Islami''' captured Afshar, a group of armed men entered her residential compound, and detained S., her husband. ... After he was detained, a second group of 10-15 Ittihad soldiers came to the house between ... Witness K, 75 years old, stated that troops affiliated to Sayyaf abducted him from Sar-i Jui ... The Ittihad troops then took him to Company (a Sayyaf-controlled area) on that day and held him there for two months. The commander who captured him was Ghulam Rasool, affiliated to Sayyaf. ... Witness G was briefly arrested and beaten unconscious by Ittehad troops ... Abdullah Khan, of Ghazni Province, 67 years old, was arrested from Afshar by Commander Aziz Banjar, a Sayyaf commander. The rest of the family had fled to Taimani during the main military operation. ... Witness Sh. told the Afghanistan Justice Project that when Ittihad forces entered her house ..."

"Both Massoud, together with his senior commanders, and Sayyaf failed to take effective measures to prevent abuses before the operation commenced, or to stop them once the operation was underway."

"Massoud convened a meeting in the Hotel Intercontinental which, belatedly, discussed arrangements for security in the newly captured areas. ... The meeting ordered a halt to the massacre and looting ..."

Note that Pulitzer Price winner and expert on war crimes Roy Gutman summarizes this very same source (Afghanistan Justice Project) and this very issue the following way:
 * "But according to witnesses located by the Afghanistan Justice Project, the force that entered Afshar and committed summary executions, disappearances and rape was Sayyaf's Ittihad, which was not under Massoud's command. Massoud ordered a halt to the massacres and looting on February 12, but they continued." (Roy Gutman, How we missed the story, p. 222)

Historical context and testimony by John Jennings (Associated Press, The Economist) who was personally present in Afshar (during the operation itself) and in Kabul (1991-1994) as an observer (John Jennings, in "Massoud" by Marcela Grad, Webster University Press, p. 179):
 * "The Iran-backed Shiite Hazara militia wasn't supposed to be in town either: They were able to seize southern and western Kabul precisely because of the collapse of the army perimeter engineered by Pakistan's proxy militias and their communist allies. Massoud did everything within his power to restrain the Hazara "ethnic cleansing" campaign in southwest Kabul, which began barely a month after the communist regime collapsed. ... Massoud's hands were tied to some extent, because except for short periods he was unable to keep his enemies out of artillery range - just as better-equipped communist troops before them and NATO troops afterward have proven unable to stop terrorist attacks in Kabul. The enemy used munitions from Pakistani army depots to shell marketplaces and intersections at peak traffic hours. They deliberately killed tens of thousands of civilians. Despite the ongoing disinformation, there is no doubt and no question, in the minds of objective observers who were actually present, that it was Massoud who struggled to uphold human rights and his enemies who abused them. That led to trade-offs - the stuff of every political and military decision, west or east. When Iran-backed [Wahdat] Hazara militiamen who had also been involved in ethnic cleansing and were allied to Hekmatyar began shelling Kabul's northwestern neighborhoods, Massoud worried aloud to his aides that driving them from their positions [in Afshar] would risk allowing some of his allies' camp followers [notably those of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf] to commit atrocities against Hazara captives. On the other hand, he noted, the alternative was to allow Hazara militiamen to continue shelling much more heavily populated areas, and killing many more noncombatants, on the other side of the town. Understandably, he chose the former. In the resulting Afshar operation abuses [by Massoud’s troops] were minimal, as I saw for myself - nothing compared to the savagery I had witnessed the Hazara [Wahdat] militia inflict on noncombatants. Of course that has never stopped political opportunists (often masquerading as human rights activists) from inventing a “massacre”, that never, in fact, occurred. During the battle, I watched Panjshiris [Massoud's troops] rescue a wounded Hazara woman caught in a cross fire and carry her to safety. Next day I stumbled across one of Wahdat’s impromptu jails in the basement of an abandoned house, complete with three non-Hazara corpses, tied up with baling wire, and shot as the gunmen fled. ... Any popular movement, if it is truly popular, is going to harbor a criminal element, just because any large population harbors a criminal element. It is unrealistic to expect zero crimes. Yet Afghans, even Massoud's enemies, know that abuses by his troops were rare and punished as often as they were caught. ... His enemies on the other hand undertook mass murder, looting, and ethnic cleansing as a matter of policy. It also bears noting, that from late 1992 through early 1995, Massoud's enemies enjoyed direct military backing from all of Afghanistan's militarily significant neighbors - Pakistan, Iran and Uzbekistan. ... Had Massoud not fought to hold on to Kabul, the human rights situation in Afghanistan and throughout the region would have been vastly worse than it was."

JCAla (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 26, 2012 at 18:43 (UTC) Reason: Stale - no discussion in the last two weeks.

Walter Mignolo


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

I have added content saying that Walter Mignolo was part of the Group of 88, a group of professors who signed the open letter during the Duke lacrosse case. (He would later sign the clarifying letter as well.) The argument is over this being included. His signature is an endorsement of this, and the letter received massive amounts of media attention. A signature on something means that the person backs what it is saying. I argued that it is a sign of action (not like declining to sign something -- the other professors who weren't part of the 88 Duke faculty). Someone being part of the minority like this is mentioned on other pages (like the pages of minority views against their party with the Taxpayer Protection Pledge - Ben Nelson, Ben Chandler, Robert Andrews). Mignolo was part of the minority and this open letter received as much if not more press than the pledge (which is just one example). The issue is including the piece of information, and there was discussion about the significance of an endorsement. My suggestion was mentioning that he was a signer in a non-prominent way on the page.

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  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?

We have discussed this on the talk page. Discussion is available here. There has been significant discussion that has taken part over the course of a few days.


 * How do you think we can help?

Provide us with an outside view on the matter of including that he signed these and there was a huge amount of media coverage involved. Please review the talk page discussion and we will try to keep focused on the matter at hand.

DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Walter Mignolo discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * DietFoodstamp makes one key mistake above, which is what Maunus and I keep telling him. The Group of 88 letter got a reasonable amount of media coverage (not huge in my opinion, but enough for WP's standards); all three of us agree on this. However, DietFoodstamp has not been able to substantiate that 'Mignolo's being a signatory on the letter received any coverage. Yes, we can verify he signed it. But, as the name itself indicates, so did 87 others. There is no indication anywhere that this signing is particularly relevant to Mignolo's life, because no reliable sources have discussed his involvement specifically. I'm really trying to AGF, but looking at the wider pattern of DietFoodstamp's editing, he appears to be very interested in including negative comment on signatories of this letter. In any event, including this info in Mignolo's article is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV), and the way it was phrased also violates WP:OR, and, arguably, since the whole point appears to be to make Mignolo look bad, a violation of WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian has unfortunately not acknowledged that someone signing a document is an endorsement to them believing in what it says, which seems to be accepted throughout the rest of Wikipedia. I don't want to put any of my personal views into this and I repeat that we are just discussing including this in general because it is a significant event. I am not trying to add certain content, and would love to discuss that -- after this is resolved, of course. The point is that he was involved in this, which I think is very clear. Yes there were 88 signatories -- which is a small minority when compared to Duke University faculty as a whole (I think around 750 total faculty, so definitely the minority). There is no 'negative agenda' against Mignolo, I am simply moving to contribute and keep with Wikipedia's quest for information and knowledge freedom and accessibility--and this event was covered by nearly every major news outlet in the US.
 * It is your own prerogative if you feel that signing the open letter makes Walter Mignolo--and the other 87--'look bad' (you could also read it that he took action when he saw social injustice, regardless of what happened later), but I am simply trying to keep this encyclopedic in nature. I don't understand why this should be actively suppressed -- I would argue that a simple, factual, non-biased and non-prominent entry is justified. DietFoodstamp (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I maintain that in order to include it it is not enough to have information that6 he signed - but also information that explicitly mentions his signature as having some kind of significance in relation to his person. We are not in the business of making a list of who signed which petitions. Walter Mignolo is a scholar with a long and sometimnes controversial career - this one signature has no relevance to his biography untill someone actually publishes a source about Mignolo (not about the letter) explaining what makes it relevant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax was a big deal. If someone was a part of the guilt-presuming pack, that's a big deal, and worthy of mention.  William Jockusch (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be if there was a source saying that it was a big deal to have signed the letter yes.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 17:01 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

British Pakistanis


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

what is disputed is the content added by User:AnkhMorpork and User:Shrike here,. the content implies that pedophilia is connected with ethnic background and thus violates npov. there are several pages about racial groups on wikipedia and none of them contain such content. as another user noted; "belgium page does not feature a subsection on the innate pedophilia of belgians". many europeans are involved in the disgusting thai sex trade but there is no subsection about this on the europeans-page either. and so on and so forth.

the sources used by ankmorpork and shrike are also questionable.

erick stakelbeck, for example, is described as "anti-muslim". an opinion piece with the very contentious title "most-uk-girl-child-abusers-are-british-pakistanis" is also used. however, most child abusers in britain are whites. the times article used as a source in this opinion piece is also an opinion piece. in addition, most of the content added by ankmorpork is about the "rochdale grooming trial". totally undue.

another thing: this sort of information belongs to pages like Human trafficking in the United Kingdom or Slavery in Britain and Ireland but not the page about british pakistanis. ankmorpork's additions violate wp:npov, wp:undue and are totally un-encyclopedic. ankmorpork and shrike also violated wp:brd. wp:brd implies being bold, yes, but when you are reverted, a discussion and consensus is obliged before another set of additions are made. instead, ankmorpork and shrike have forced the material back into the article.--  altetendekrabbe   05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?



i suspect that user shrike and ankmorpork are tag-teaming. see the discussion here,


 * 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.--  altetendekrabbe   05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  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 was a discussion on the talk page but with no result. consensus was thus not reached. however, ankmorpork and shrike have forced the material back into the article.--  altetendekrabbe   05:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How do you think we can help?

the content has to be moved to a more appropriate page with the unreliable sources weeded out. the content is undue and violates npov. it is also supported by an opinion piece and erik stakelbeck. most of the content is about the "rochdale grooming trial". totally undue.--  altetendekrabbe   18:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

British Pakistanis discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' The dispute started with accusation by Altetendekrabbe not a good start you also forgot to notify User:Darkness Shines.Anyhow it was already explained to this user that the sources tell about the community so its relevant to the article.--Shrike (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV:"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." The issue is in the news at the moment because a gang of British Pakistanis have recently been convicted of child abuse. This does not necessarily mean it is proportionate or appropriate to discuss in the British Pakistanis article. Dlv999 (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You would be correct if your premise was correct. However this is not an isolated event but an ongoing issue which prompted a BBC documentary examining the on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK, and comment from across the media. Bernardo's children charity and the Ramadan Foundation have both discussed this worrying trend and not just in relation to this single episode. See other notable cases, the British Pakistani Telford sex ring, and government reaction. Channel 4 made a documentary on Pakistani sex grooming in 2004; its quite a stretch to describe this issue as 'recentism'.' Ankh '. Morpork  20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC reports you cite of so called "other notable cases" do not mention the Pakistani community, so it seems that is your own synth. The news report you cite for the "government response" is actually a single MP giving his personal opinion, which is not shared by other politicians or Banardos quoted in the article. e.g. " But Keith Vaz, chairman of the home affairs select committee, said it was not a cultural problem and it was wrong to stereotype a whole community. And Barnados chief executive Martin Narey said the case was more about vulnerable children of all races who were at risk from abuse." Dlv999 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since you state that "The BBC reports you cite of so called "other notable cases" do not mention the Pakistani community", have a look at the first sentence of the BBC documentary article which states: Rochdale has featured in a BBC documentary on the subject of on-street grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK. Can you confirm that your concern is that sources do not mention the Pakistani community in conjunction with other cases, because this can be easily rectified?' Ankh '. Morpork  21:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue, as I think was clear, is that the two cited sources you gave (other, Telford sex ring) to claim other notable cases (i.e other than the Rochdale case currently in the news) do not discuss the Pakistani community. Therefore they are not relevant to the discussion. Dlv999 (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understood what you were saying and I therefore will repeat what I asked you previously: If I establish that these cases were discussed in relation to the Pakistani community, would you withdraw your cited objections and agree with this material's inclusion?' Ankh '. Morpork  23:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm missing the subtle nuances in the differentiation between recent events and ongoing issues, but let's start somewhere else: As the article currently reads, it would probably be more informative to the reader if the "Contemporary issues" was renamed "Badges of shame". There's no balance at all. Couldn't we add similar badges of shame on many articles on national/ethnic groups? Austrians, it seems, have a unique proclivity for private incarcerations with pedophilic/incestuous motives. Belgians are known for pedophilia and Norwegians are mass consumers of sex workers abroad, to the point that the goverment needs to regulate it. Would the Fritzl case mean that Natascha Kampusch's experiences were transformed from a single, horrendous case to an ongoing issue of unknown proportions?
 * When it comes to this specific case, it seems to me that the sources used for verification all deal with one specific case, the Rochdale one, while the two references that generalise the problem are opinion pieces by a raving representative of the American Christian Right's least jovial segments and in an Indian (no hard feelings towards Pakistanis at all) bloggish newspaper. The Rochdale case is notable enough for its own article. I would say that even in a large section on contemporary issues among British Pakistanis, that article should be referenced by at most one sentence, per is WP:UNDUE, considering that the amount of British Pakistanis involved is small compared to the entire populace. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC) comment later edited --benjamil (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For balance, let me point out that Shrike, AnkhMorpork, No More Mr Nice Guy, Luke 19 Verse 27 ‎and a couple of others are blatently 'pro'-Israel. It's no secret that 'pro'-Israel and Muslim-baiting are now two sides of the same coin. The more nauseating aspect here is the introduction of an ethnic element. I actually found it pretty shocking: I come across plenty of 'pro'-Israeli posters, but they're not usually racist. These two seem to have no limits. Can you imagine the reaction if someone posted something about Jews having a propensity to paedophilia, citing some right-wing Saudi website? The fact that the posts by Shrike and the other user do not elicit the same reaction, sadly, speaks volumes about other users.There seems to be a little cluster of these people that go around together editing articles. I posted simple advice on a user's talk page to not get dragged into discussion with one of the above-mentioned users, only for one of the other above-mentioned users to show up and post something. They harass and tag-team like crazy, it's ridiculous. I can't believe it's so blatant yet they have got away with it, and doubtless will continue to do so. Ban these racists from editing. ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The content is acceptable provided that WP:BALANCE is applied. At the moment it is not. Leaky  Caldron  09:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * no, it's not acceptable. the very nature of the content is highly contentious, violating npov. you'll never get balance. the sources are dubious. besides, user ankhmorpork and user shrike don't have any consensus. they *forced* the content into the article, violating wp:brd.--  altetendekrabbe   10:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you focus on the content and balance it rather than considering the actions of the editors with whom you disagree. It isn't as black and white as either side here wish to make it out. That's no good reason for not including the factual elements representing all aspects of the matter. Leaky  Caldron  11:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you don't see such content on any other racial group, as pointed out by several editors. and rules are rules: content with absolutely no consensus has been forced into the text. it will be removed.--  altetendekrabbe   12:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free. But a word of advice first. This is a DR case that you brought. Please don't speak aggressively to editors like me who attempt to represent a view that you don't share. Leaky  Caldron  12:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no wish to get into a dispute with individuals which involves nit-picking over individual sources. This disgusting bit of POV-pushing is clearly an attack on British people of Pakistani descent as a whole (many of whome are third or even fourth-generation British citizens, and may not self identify as 'British Pakistanis' at all - this is largely an external definition, rather than a self-assigned one), based on cherry-picking of sources. As such it can only be motivated by political point-scoring, Islmaophobia, or outright racism, and has no place in Wikipedia. That the disputed section cites the opinions of Erick Stakelbeck, an American Right-wing commentator who recently openly asserted his support for the neo-Fascist English Defence League is clear enough indication to me that those supporting the inclusion of the section need to seriously consider their fitness for a project which is intended to serve the interests of all, rather than pushing agendas in support of some faction or another. This is neither Stormfront nor Conservapedia, and we don't need this sort of shit here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * precisely!--  altetendekrabbe   15:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And would you compare the BBC to Der Stürmer and Jack Straw to Mr. Goebbels, as they refer to "British Pakistanis" and ol' Beebs even commissioned a documentary about child sex grooming by Pakistani men. This issue is cited by numerous sources with regards to the Pakistani community, and we report what the sources say. If you feel that there has been cherry picking (an unfortunate turn of phrase), then please suggest how to balance the paragraph and more accurately sum up this issue.' Ankh '. Morpork  15:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't 'balance' bigotry. Any inclusion of controversial material almost entirely sourced around a recent single case has no business going into an article about an ethnic minority at all, per WP:UNDUE. And no, I wouldn't compare Jack Straw to Mr. Goebbels. I will however be willing to provide comparisons between those promoting this POV-pushing crap and Goebbels on request... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * you're being disruptive, please read IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--  altetendekrabbe   15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its you who should read it there at least 4 editors that said it could be mentioned in the article in some way.--Shrike (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I truly hope your not counting my viewpoints as support for your position. --benjamil (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. I realise that I should have written something more. People, I don't think I've seen Godwin's law make itself felt so quickly ever before. Seriously, AnkhMorpork and Shrike, do you really, really, honestly believe that the use of crazy sources (Stakelbeck) has anything to do with Wikipedia's goals, and that the contemporary issues concerning the British Pakistani minority are 1) terrorism, 2) discrimination and 3) pedophilia? If you take special interest in the contemporary issues of the British Pakistani community, why don't you make some edits that actually explain these issues in proportion to their prevalence and/or relation to the 1.2 million people community using some real sources? I've read the article that AnkhMorpork has written about the case (or rather the perpetrators), and as it is subject of an edit war along the lines that sparked the call for this dispute resolution, I can't advice mentioning the case in the British Pakistani article at all. I'll edit my earlier comment to make that quite clear. Best regards, --benjamil (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * here is a racist who is supporting ankhmorpork . i wonder why? the discussion on british pakistani page and on the dispute resolution page makes it clear that ankhmorpork is a disruptive editor. he uses dubious sources, adds badges of shame, and is disengenuous about what is written in the sources. all of this is clearly demonstrated in the discussion. the fact that he is getting the support of racists means that ankhmorpork edits confirm their bigotry. other users are fully aware of his behavior as well --  altetendekrabbe   09:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to reflect the behavior of one racist troll on AnkhMorpork.--Atlan (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I've recently found out that User:Altetendekrabbe has for the second time experienced to be subjected to a sockpuppet investigation related to this same matter, and has been blocked for expressing his dismay with this (in admittedly a rather aggressive way, but I would probably have becom aggressive too). To me it seems that calls for sockpuppet investigations are not found to be as disruptive as they should be. That's my personal opinion. I'm not feeling confident that equal standards are being applied. Also, I want to make it clear that in my opinion this is not a matter of sources, but a matter of balance and due weight. It is fairly apparent that none of the involved are faint of heart, and that the focus on incivility does not aid in resolving the dispute. For any latecomers, it will be useful to know that the issue has also been discussed on the administrator's noticeboard/incidents. Sadly, this dispute is making me spend all of my Wikitime reading WP and pondering the phrasing of responses. I'll make a proposal for resolution. It might be poor, but hey, then you can propose your own. If I think it's better, I'll be happy to strike out my half hearted attempts at legalese (benjamil (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)):


 * 1) British Pakistanis shall not contain mention of the Rochdale abuse case until the main article on that case is completed and stable, and not before June 1.
 * 2) When such mention is made, the entire section on contemporary issues shall be rewritten in a balanced manner that doesn't give the case undue weight.
 * 3) The section should be proposed in the talk page of British Pakistanis three days before it is edited into the article. The editor proposing it shall notify all parties to the current dispute and there shall be a vote (open to all editors, obviously, regardless of whether they've been involved in the dispute or not). A 3/4 majority shall be required to make the edit.
 * 4) All the involved editors shall refrain from making other edits to the contemporary issues section until consensus has been reached that it should be excluded, or the vote has passed.
 * Approve --benjamil (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have noted your comments about the use of unreliable sources so I shall list the sources that I consider pertinent to this issue. Please point out which ones that are entirely undesirable.


 * The Sunday Guardian
 * Rochdale News
 * The Telegraph
 * The Times(available here)
 * The Telegraph
 * BBC
 * The National
 * BBC
 * AIM

Both a BBC documentary and a Channel 4 documentary have been made on this topic. ' Ankh '. Morpork  23:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For a start, we can do without the bigoted drivel from www.sunday-guardian.com - though like most of the other sources, it is only repeating the story from The Times, with added spin. Citing the same material from multiple sources doesn't make it more reliable. Sourcing is irrelevant though, unless you can establish that this issue deserves mention in an article about an ethnic group. Are you suggesting that similar 'ethnic profiling' should be done with other such articles? I'm sure that it would be possible to cherry-pick enough similarly (un)reliable material to do it in them to, if that is what the project wants. Fortunately, I see no reason to think that it does. So tell us, why do you think this issue is so significant to this ethnic group? The Times article pointed out that elsewhere, other ethnic minorities have also been alleged to have been involved in some aspects of child sexual abuse (along of course with the 'white' ethnic 'majority'). Are you proposing to add such material to all articles on UK ethnicities? And if not, please explain why you consider this one so important? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One of the source related issues is presented very clearly on the administrator's noticeboard. Although the responsibility for letting them remain by adamantly reverting their deletes are shared by AnkhMorpork, Shrike and Darknesshines, I now see that it is the latter who is responsible for actually inserting the poorest sources (Stakelbeck diff and Sunday Guardian diff).--benjamil (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think benjamil's proposal makes sense, and will just make it clear that the discussion so far has not convinced me that this issue needs mention on the main page about British Pakistanis.Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this content dispute. I see no reason to jump through benjamil's well-intentioned but ever so slightly controlling & censorious hoops, other than that the matter should be discussed on the article talk page, not at this conspicuous waste of space board. Leaky  Caldron  14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be discussed here if it weren't for the breakdown of normal talk on the page, it seems. At least one editor apparently felt the need to make the issue known to a wider audience. As far as I can see, that need hasn't diminished. As a rather inexperienced editor, I would appreciate your comment on when it is reasonable to move on back to the talk page. I've suggested one way to get to that point. Do you consider it likely that the issue would de-escalate without getting help from a wider community to put up a framework for further work? --benjamil (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the chief protagonists seem to be more interested in mud slinging over at ANI . I'm all for wider community input, but the majority of the input here is from the original editors to the dispute, hence my disparaging remark about this board. It just doesn't seem to be effective and a better controlled, wider participated discussion on the article TP seems likely to service the purpose better because it will have more article-specific watchers. My 2p anyway. Leaky  Caldron  12:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My view
I think, on balance, it doesn't belong on the British Pakistani article, yet - for the obvious reason that it's just such a tiny number of British Pakistanis that it's totally irrelevant (let's say there's a thousand offenders, which I hope is a huge over-estimate. They're not exactly going to be bragging about it - so at most ten thousand would even know. That's a TINY proportion of British Pakistanis). But ironically, despite not fitting into this article, it may merit its own article, something like British Asian Sex Ring controversy or something. Why? Because it has indisputably received a heck of a lot of media coverage over the last couple of months. It's had journalists, collumnists, politicians, reporters, socioilogists and so on discussing it. Indeed, to not have an article would be curious. Especially since more trials are coming. Perhaps we (collective we, not sure I want to get involved although I may have a go) should concentrate on getting the "Public debate and analysis" section of Rochdale sex trafficking gang sorted and it can be split into an article later. Egg  Centri  c  00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo War


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

On the talk page, there is a debate on whether Kosovo War can be considered part of the Yugoslav Wars. User Direktor keeps denying the notion, despite dozens of sources from myself and user:Joy. We are in a deadlock.

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  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 was a discussion on the talk page - - but with no result. User:Joy and myself think we have proven with enough sources that Kosovo War is used in the same context with wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, while user:DIRECTOR does not agree.

An overview of the sources that support including the Kosovo conflict:
 * 1) One of these challenges, launched following the Dayton Accord in the Serbian province of Kosovo, would culminate, after several years of escalating tension, in a fourth Balkan war, Craig Nation, page 223
 * 2) The Yugoslav Wars: The Kosovo Conflict, Nigel Thomas, p. 47
 * 3) BBC: The Croatian war claimed some 20,000 lives, the Bosnian war 100,000 and the Kosovo war some 10,000... Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro and to a lesser extent other parts of the former Yugoslavia, are all still struggling with the legacies of the Yugoslav wars.
 * 4) These four struggles have been called the wars of Yugoslav succession because they determined what countries succeeded the SFRY. The first war occurred in Slovenia and lasted ten days in June and July 1991, producing few casualties. The second war was fought in Croatia from July to December 1991 and in the summer of 1995. The third war took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992 to 1995. The second and third wars resulted in hundreds of thousands of mostly civilian casualties, massive property damage, and more than 2.5 million refugees. The fourth war, sometimes known as the Kosovo war, lasted from March to June 1999
 * 5) These four struggles have been called the wars of Yugoslav succession because they determined what countries succeeded the SFRY (Rusinow, Dennison, 2008)
 * 6) US Intervention Policy And Army Innovation: From Vietnam To Iraq, by Richard Lock-Pullan, p. 173
 * 7) The Kosovo Conflict and International Law: An Analytical Documentation 1974-1999, by Heike Krieger, p. 470
 * 8) University of Edinburgh, Igor Štiks, p. 20, "The Wars of Yugoslav secession ended with Serbia's withdrawal from Kosovo in 1999."


 * How do you think we can help?

A neutral, third opinion from other users should bring a verdict if Kosovo War can be considered part of the 1990s wars in the former Yugoslavia or not.

Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslav Wars-Kosovo War
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' First of all, User:Justice and Arbitration's summary of the situation is appallingly biased. Since the man has posted nothing but obvious OR (and personal attacks), I strongly suspect all his dozens upon dozens of sources are misquoted. Throughout the thread, all I have been doing is explaining to the user what original research is, and why its unacceptable. He has condescendingly "dismissed" all objections. I keep asking for a single source that actually directly supports his claim, to no avail. All I would like to see is a source that in some way states the Kosovo War is one of the "Yugoslav Wars". -- Director  ( talk )  04:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me just give a source that is already in the article as an opening statement. It is published by the International Center for Transitional Justice - it gives a total sum of people killed in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, i.e. 140,000 people, and it also lists - Kosovo. Let now third users discuss it and then we will take it from here.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 08:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes of course! Because its the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia - and Kosovo is part of former Yugoslavia. What does that have to do with the Kosovo War being listed among the three Yugoslav Wars? For the tenth time, it is OR for you to conclude from this that the Kosovo War is one the Yugoslav Wars. The source does not say that - you do. The court has nothing whatsoever to say on whether the Kosovo War is or isn't one of the Yugoslav Wars. You are being incredibly WP:DISRUPTIVE. Please read and understand what WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is when it is pointed out to you twenty times: "to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."


 * Please present direct support for your claim or it should be removed as it is supported by misquoted sources "liberally" interpreted by yourself. -- Director  ( talk )  09:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I somehow start to doubt you even fully understand what WP:DISRUPTIVE even means, because we are not on the talk page of the Yugoslav Wars anymore, but on the dispute resoluton noticeboard where now the debate is in the hands of other users. And by the way, the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) are not one and the same thing. Calm down, if you are so confident that you are right, and that all my sources are wrong, then you have nothing to worry about. Now relax and let other users give their opinion on the matter.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight. You have a link to a document entitled Transitional Justice in the Former Yugoslavia, issued by the ICTJ, that lists deaths in Kosovo alongside deaths in the rest of former Yugoslavia, and you claim this document provides direct evidence that the Kosovo War is one of the Yugoslav Wars. What a perfect example of the sources you've listed thus far. That is not only original research, its rather bad original research. And forgive me for starting to lose my temper, but I don't like it when I have to repeat the same thing over and over again (amid personal attacks and condescending remarks ). -- Director  ( talk )  12:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at some of the cites, and the manner in which they are used, I think there is a strong case for WP:SYN here. There are many articles like this on wikipedia: a bunch of cites are knitted together and a synthetic conclusion is arrived at, but none of the individual sources can be shown to have reached the same conclusion. If there are sources that explicitly state what the editors here wish to assert it should be possible to offer specific page numbers from reliable secondary sources. Semitransgenic  talk. 12:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally someone else has joined the discussion. It is obvious that when ICTJ writes about the wars in the former Yugoslavia, that it lists all the territories encompassed in it. But if that source does not convince you, there are many more:
 * One of these challenges, launched following the Dayton Accord in the Serbian province of Kosovo, would culminate, after several years of escalating tension, in a fourth Balkan war, Craig Nation, page 223
 * The Yugoslav Wars: The Kosovo Conflict, Nigel Thomas, p. 47.--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)
 * I saw your request for a page number and was puzzled by it. Did you notice that the book is called "The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991–1999"? In other words, the author feels the collapse of Yugoslavia ended in 1999. Not 1995, 1999. There is no synthesis here - the author themselves promotes the position that the topic spans the period past to 1999.
 * Tim Judah's text, referenced in the article, says The story of those conflicts in Slovenia, in Croatia, in Bosnia, in Kosovo, and finally NATO's war in Yugoslavia, has been told many times. I see absolutely no doubt there that the author literally thinks the group of wars does not exclude the Kosovo war.
 * The third listed source says The four wars of Milošević&mdash;against Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and finally against Kosov&mdash;came to an end only with the bombing of Serbia, the removal of Milošević from power, and the development of a Serbian reform-oriented regime.. Likewise, I fail to see how we can claim that this author would agree with the Yugoslav wars including only the first three wars, but not the fourth. There's nothing ambiguous about it.
 * Overall, I have called upon DIREKTOR to produce a modicum of evidence for his position - for example a book or an article that discusses the Yugoslav wars and lists only the first three of them in the group, while at the same time mentioning the Kosovo war, outside the group. Surely this shouldn't be particularly hard to produce. So far, however, he has refused to do this, and instead persists in the flamewar. I think that's pointless. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Joy. The WP:BURDEN is on you, Joy, call as much as you like. I have always listed sources where I believed they are necessary, but the validity of one's argument is not in how much effort he expends in googling and posting irrelevant links. This is WP:SYNTHESIS of the most obvious variety. "The four wars of Milosevich"? Of course! Milosevich has been involved in all four. If you believe the "Yugoslav Wars" are defined as synonymous with "all wars Milosevich had a part in", then provide sources in support. If you cannot do so, the contested claim has to be removed.


 * Obviously Serbia, and the President of Serbia (Milošević), has been involved in four wars - but while three of them took place simultaneously, directly caused by the breakup of Yugoslavia, one of them took place four years after the breakup and the other three were over and done with. Granted, it might be debatable whether the "breakup of Yugoslavia" can be considered to have been over in 1992, 1995, 1999, 2006 (secession of Montenegro), etc. some even claim its still going on - but that is not the issue here. The issue is: do you fellas, or do you not, have a source that directly states the Kosovo War (1998-99) is one of the Yugoslav Wars (the rest of them taking place 1991-95)? Its a perfectly valid request. -- Director  ( talk )  14:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Justice and Arbitration. Your first clue should have been the very fact that you have to "convince" someone your sources state what you say they state. Your first source characterizes Kosovo as the "fourth Balkan war". I suspect the author is referring to the conflict in Kosovo being "fourth" after the First Balkan War, the Second Balkan War - and the "Third Balkan War", I assume, are the Yugoslav Wars, the three conflicts between 1991-95. Either that, or the historian is forgetting his history, and I doubt that. In any case, it is irrelevant, as the question is not whether the Kosovo War is a the "Fourth Balkan War", but whether it is one of the Yugoslav Wars.


 * As for your second source, I already pointed out that its (a 50-page booklet) merely entitled "Yugoslav Wars", and you yourself have extrapolated that this means the Kosovo War, just for being covered in the book, belongs in the Yugoslav Wars. If you had a real source that clearly and directly supports said claim, then (imo) this might help to support it as something other than WP:FRINGE - but as things are now, it is nothing more than another attempt at OR. You're concocting support for complex, specific claims - from a book's contents. The book makes no claim in your support - you're concluding that it does. -- Director  ( talk )  15:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * can I ask someone to provide a reliable source that offers an explicit definition of the "Yugoslav Wars"? preferably one that lists exactly what territories/conflicts are covered by this umbrella term? Semitransgenic  talk. 15:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Craig Nation gives a good definition: [http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/00117.pdf From the prelude in Slovenia in 1991, through the more destructive conflicts in Croatia, BosniaHerzegovina, and Kosovo between 1992 and 1999, to the epilogue in Macedonia in 2000-2001, what I prefer to call the War of Yugoslav Succession has been about efforts to assert sovereignty over territory in the absence of any kind of agreement concerning how the collapsing federation might have been reorganized, or disassembled, short of a resort to force. Slobodan Milošević has been singled out for special censure for his blatant manipulation of Serbian nationalism in order to secure a hold on power, and willingness to resort to blood and iron in order to carve a greater Serbia from the body of former Yugoslavia]--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * that source appears to be WP:SPS. Is that the best we've got? Additionally, even if it were usable, it's still only one person's view. Can we demonstrate what the academic consensus on this matter is somehow? Are there no published scholarly sources that offer the required definition?  Semitransgenic  talk. 17:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you hit the nail on the head there, Semitransgenic. The Yugoslav Wars article was just a sort of summary article with a barely-sourced title. The problematic and unsourced conception/title of the article is central to the problem here. -- Director  ( talk )  18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The concept is indeed problematic since it seems there are different titles to it, but it was still enough to warrant hundred books written on the topic, among them one published by BBC itself in 1996, "Yugoslavia: death of a nation", which mentions the term "Yugoslav Wars" on page 334. http://books.google.hr/books?hl=hr&id=ZxwOAQAAMAAJ&dq=fall+of+yugoslavia&q=yugoslav+wars The problem is, I can only browse a little into some books on google, so I cannot get a clear overview on every page to find a good definition. Most sources just mention the timeline (the 1990s) and territories in conflict. Still, the International Crisis Group (ICG) http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6a6ce1c&skip=0&query=yugoslav has a good definition in the background of the conflict: "Today's political geography of the Balkans is the result of four separate wars -- in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo -- and a series of partially-implemented, internationally-brokered peace agreements. It reflects the failure, on the one hand, of the former Yugoslavia to come to terms with the transition from one-party, Marxist rule to democracy, and, on the other hand, of the international community to manage the disintegration of the country. The international community, led by the European Community (EC) as the European Union (EU) was then called, became involved in the wars of Yugoslav dissolution " whereas the CIA https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ri.html says this in the history of Serbia: "In 1989, Slobodan MILOSEVIC became president of the Republic of Serbia and his ultranationalist calls for Serbian domination led to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia along ethnic lines. In 1991, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia declared independence, followed by Bosnia in 1992. The remaining republics of Serbia and Montenegro declared a new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) in April 1992 and under MILOSEVIC's leadership, Serbia led various military campaigns to unite ethnic Serbs in neighboring republics into a "Greater Serbia". The international community, led by the European Community (EC) as the European Union (EU) was then called, became involved in the wars of Yugoslav dissolution "--Justice and Arbitration (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if you don't have access to the required sources, then you really need expert input here. Have you posted on the relevant notice boards to seek expert attention on the matter?
 * The bottom line is that an article entitled "Yuogslav Wars" should reflect how reliable academic sources deal with the subject matter. If said sources do not view the Kosovo War as a member of the set "Yugoslav Wars" then neither should we, but if they do, then there is absolutely no problem including it.  Semitransgenic  talk. 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. J&A's "impressions" side, its really starting to look like there isn't a single source that claims anything of the sort. -- Director  ( talk )  22:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DIRECTOR, this is not for you to decide anymore, nor me or Joy. This is now in the hands of others who will bring a decision based on the sources. With regards to the lack of available definitions at our current disposal, you can either request that the whole article Yugoslav Wars be deleted (which will be difficult, since there are books written on the topic) or ask help from an expert for a definition. Either way, this is not the topic of this noticeboard – if you want one, make another, separate request for *that* issue on the WP:DRN. In the meantime, I want *this* dispute to be resolved, namely if Kosovo can be considered part of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Me and Joy posted sources of authors who put the end of Yugoslav Wars in 1999 so user:Semitransgenic is on the move now. --Justice and Arbitration (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ugh..
 * 1. This is not WP:ARBCOM, J&A, nobody will "render judgement upon us". This is a place for discussion.
 * 2. Your false dichotomies are irrelevant, the addition of the Kosovo War (being disputed and unsourced) should simply be reverted.
 * 3. This is not a noticeboard, its a thread on a noticeboard.
 * 4. You do not WP:OWN this thread, and you're not called-upon to determine what is and is not relevant to the subject. What we're discussing is clearly related and relevant.
 * 5. You posted a lot of sources. Unfortunately they do not support your claim, but serve instead merely as the basis for your own synthesis.
 * -- Director  ( talk )  08:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @J&A this is just an informal dispute resolution process that is open to anyone who want to offer an opinion. I tagged the article for expert input, best you try and get the attention of someone involved in WP:MILHIST. But for what's it's worth, the main problem here is the article title. We have a Breakup of Yugoslavia article already, perhaps some of the content could be moved there and a redirect offered for the search term "Yugoslav wars"? Looking at some of the usable sources, undoubtedly the Kosovo war was a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, so, by inference, I can see that it could be viewed as an element of the set "Yugoslav wars", but we still need a source that states this in the required context. I think it's really down to whether or not there is enough consensus to accept the Osprey book title (The Yugoslav Wars) as a valid source. For that you need to go WP:RSN.  Semitransgenic  talk. 11:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dunn reverts


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

The user Carthage 44 has been reverting statistical updates to Adam Dunn's page, among others. He has claimed in a few of his edit summaries that there is "No need to update so often."

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  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?

Both I and Zepppep have attempted to discuss this with Carthage 44 on his talk page, but he has only removed our posts. Zepppep also discussed it with Carthage44 on the Adam Dunn talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

You can explain to Carthage 44 that there is no harm in regularly updating a page and that he needs to be willing to discuss the issue with the other editors involved.

AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam Dunn reverts discussion
I saw that Carthage44 had again reverted a stats edit, I reverted his edit, and left a (what I thought) clear note on the talk page, to go with my edit summary pointing him there. He made a minor edit to my reversion, which while technically correct, appears to violate S.O.P. for stats keeping. The fact that he didn't immediately revert my edit seems like a good sign to me that he doesn't want to edit war over it, I notice that he has several blocks for that already, so it's possible that it's getting through to him now, call me an optimist. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 17:06 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn — TM 17:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

He once again reverted one of my edits, although Despayre undid his revert. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't get the impression from his previous input that there is any desire on his part to discuss the situation. If he does it again, I would suggest taking it to ANI, be sure to include his edit summaries, since they make such an easy example of "how not to play nice with others". I do not understand why he's doing this, but it's nothing an admin can't fix with a modicum of effort. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis


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

have been trying to add RS content (from LA Times, Guardian and Jerusalem Post) to article, but keep getting rebuffed by two particular editors. Diffs:
 * guardian removal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=449850779
 * LA Times removal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=453021387
 * jpost removal: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=456851663
 * jpost removal again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=465663232
 * again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=475798673
 * again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=476810068
 * again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&diff=next&oldid=480054218

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

in my opinion, neither DrK nor Athenean want anything to do with this material since it portrays the subject in a bad light.


 * 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  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?

yes, on the talk page several times.


 * How do you think we can help?

should the material be allowed to stand, and if so, with what verbiage?

Soosim (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mikis Theodorakis discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Soosim has been trying for months, if not years now, to smear Mikis Theodorakis as an anti-semite. However, as of last fall, a clear consensus formed in the article's talkpage that these accusations were given undue weight and as such were a BLP violation that had no place in the article. This discussion can be seen here. Four editors, of diverse backgrounds, have agreed on this point. One of them User:Off2riorob (now User:Youreallycan) is an expert with lots of experience on BLP articles. The lone dissenting voice was Soosim, a single-purpose account that does pretty much nothing besides smear on this encyclopedia those critical of Israel and its policies, as his contribs log clearly shows. At first he tried to have his way via edit-warring. That didn't work, so here he is. He just keeps repeating like a broken record that his sources are reliable, his sources are reliable, but without taking into accounts the details of what happened during the interview, and the subleties of WP:DUE and WP:BLP. I note that Soosim has omitted from notifying Youreallycan of this discussion, as he has also omitted another dissenting user, User:Nojamus, for reasons known only to him. Athenean (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Athenean's comments and I also add that there was a discussion at BLPN in October 2011 where Soosim participated and which clearly decided in favour of not including this minor incident in the career of this uniquely prosemitic composer. He after all composed the Mauthausen Cantata to commemorate the tragic lives and deep humanity of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Please see: On 7 May 1995 the Mauthausen Cantata was performed at the Mauthausen Memorial under the direction of the composer and conductor Mikis Theodorakis and associated Google search. How many anti-semites does one know who have composed cantatas for Holocaust victims? But this editor will not let multi-forum consensus stand in his way of trying to include this WP:UNDUE material in the BLP article of Mikis Theodorakis. This is getting disruptive and is close to diachronic forum shopping. Δρ.Κ. λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * athenean - how do you know they are "diverse" editors? very interesting comment. and i now went to the other two editors' pages to invite them, but i see dr k also has done that. thank you. the basic issue is that neither drk nor athenean want to see anything negative on that page, even though the material exists, in RS. jumping through wiki hoops to keep it out. interesting, as well. Soosim (talk) 06:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and one more thing....since drk and athenean said it has been discussed and decided, and if i understand, the "i am an anti-semite" was a misquote based on a mistranslation (though the LA Times journalist in athens is greek...), i just tried to add theodorakis' views, in his own words, from his own website, in response to hullabaloo, about israel and zionism. and now, it gets removed as 'desparate'. anyone care to comment? here's the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikis_Theodorakis&curid=155035&diff=492827189&oldid=492825592 Soosim (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Selectively quoting and cherry-picking as usual. You seem to desperately want to portray Mikis in as negative a light as possible, by whatever means necessary. You have been obsessed with the guy for years now.  What is the reason for this obsession?  Care to explain? Athenean (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * the lady doth protest too much, methinks. Soosim (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To troll or not to troll; That is the question. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know about this discussion! I agree with others here that Soosim's case is a very weak one. Speaking for myself alone, I have never argued against newspapers or magazines being used as sources. Rather, I believe that CONTEXT has to be considered whenever controversial sources are to be used. The sources Soosim keeps mentioning were shown by other sources (in the Talk page) to be utterly misinformed. In a nutshell the problem is this: an elderly Theodorakis said something toward the end of a 2-hour interview that was picked up by some media outlets and published without a summary of the rest of the interview. Theodorakis comes off as a racist, whereas in fact he said in the very next sentence after the "controversial" comment that he loves the people of Israel. I can't think of a single good reason why someone would want to create a whole section on Theodorakis's supposed "anti-Semitism" (a laughable idea, for a man who wrote a symphonic piece to commemorate the Holocaust).Nojamus (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Nojamus for your great points. Here is more: In a 2004 interview with Haaretz, Mikis is described as follows:
 * Also:
 * Does that sound to you like an antisemite? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * also:
 * does this sound to you like an antisemite? of course not. but does it sound like something a lover of the jews and israel would say? oh my. Soosim (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be or play naive. Mikis is not criticising your people or Israel as an idea. He criticises the conduct of your government and your elites. Don't confuse the issues. One can criticise your elites and/or government and still be a friend of your people and the idea of your country. Or can you not tell the difference? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 11:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * naive? no. confused. you admit that he has said the words above. but you don't want them in the article. why not? is the article supposed to be pure, without any issue, problem, criticsm? what's wrong with what he said? he feels that way, it is a fact. why not include it and be done with it? Soosim (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it would be undue weight to do so. We cannot include every political utterance of Mikis in his biography. That would be undue weight. He has criticised countless dictatorships, governments, people in power etc. We cannot make his biography an encyclopedia of political condemnations. And in the case of Israel, we have to put all the paragraphs of his support for Israel before we include this minor episode, which was not even covered widely or in any depth by the media, where he criticised your government and your elites. But that would make his article not a biography but a controversy centred around Israel, clearly a case of undue weight. I know that I will not persuade you, given your exclusive focus on Israel-centred nationalist issues, so with this comment I will try to stop replying to your comments awaiting input from others. I think I have made my point to you clearly and in good faith but I can see that I am talking to someone who will never agree with me. This is a community noticeboard after all. Let's wait for others to chime in. I am done with you here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 13:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Undue weight indeed. Incidentally, it is already mentioned that he accuses Israel of war crimes in Gaza, so I think that is already more than sufficient. Athenean (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * well, i hope some others will weigh in. and what is undue to you by including itis undue by another for not including it. Soosim (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just weighing in as asked by Soosim above. This strikes me as a difficult one - as a reader I would be interested to be informed of these comments as I think they are fascinatingly ambiguous.  However, I'm not sure my personal, somewhat gossipy, interest in them is enough to make them encyclopaedic, especially given that a) the ambiguity makes it hard to see what he actually meant, and b) (most importantly) including this kind of ambiguous material runs the risk of tainting someone with a potentially very serious mark against their character.  So, all in all, while I think the stuff is very interesting I would think that given the seriousness of even indirectly associating someone with anti-semitism, we should probably err on the side of caution unless the sources are rather more overwhelming than they appear to be in this case.BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob Ford


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

Several editors, including myself, are at an impasse over the content at the Rob Ford article. Most recent consensus is for keeping a link to a BBC article, but it is consistently removed by the user Claimsfour. Claimsfour claims that the article is a "hitpiece" on said Rob Ford, who is a prominent politician, and that is a serious charge in and of itself. An examination of the article and recent editing is in order.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Claimsfour has not edited any other articles but this one, and we cannot vouch for his NPOV or distance on the material.


 * 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  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 has been discussed on the talk page of the article, and another editor has placed a warning on Claimsfour's talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

An impartial examination of the situation. Is it edit warring? Is it biased, as it stands now? This may take some knowledge of the subject material. There was a previous complaint about this article in 2010 during Rob Ford's election campaign. This is mentioned in the article. I have not asked for dispute resolution before, sorry if this is inappropriate.

&#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The user has been reported also to the Administrator intervention against vandalism. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 23:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob Ford's wiki page needs serious editing
I've been a contributor to for close to six years. I only bothered to register after seeing the Rob Ford article, and I realized that registering would enable me to dispute the rampant level of biased/attacks.

My issues with the Rob Ford Wiki article are as follows:

- The level of 'weasel words' is virtually biblical
 * Example: "In June 2011, Ford yet again stirred up controversy when he refused to attend Toronto's annual Pride Parade or any Pride festivities in the week leading up to the Pride Parade breaking a more than decade long tradition of Toronto Mayors supporting the city's LBGQT community.[51] The city was divided between those that thought it was his prerogative not to go to Pride and those who thought it confirmed perceptions of his homophobia. link

"Yet again"? Total idiocy.


 * This one is rich: RE: "Political views": In 2002, Ford strenuously objected to the possibility that a homeless shelter would open in his suburban Etobicoke ward.[55][56] Later in the same year, he was quoted while berating an anti-poverty activist, "Do you have a job, sir? I'll give you a newspaper to find a job, like everyone else has to do between 9 and 5."[57] In 2005, Ford told a homeless protestor, "I'm working. Why don't you get a job?"[58]

What does this have to do with a man's "Political Views"?

- The use of a comedy skit to pass off as objective news is ridiculous (This Hour Has 22 Minutes: Mary Walsh). CBC has not posted the raw footage (All other news organizations do this when there's questions as to the editing which went on). Or is Wikipedia now claiming that there was a 'laugh track' actually there when Ford was being accosted by Mary Walsh?

- The 'quote' of Ford claiming "I'm Rob Fucking Ford" when there was no evidence, no recording and all the chief of police came out saying that Ford did not say that. This garbage was on Wiki's Ford page for ages and went uncontested.

- In politics, there are no 'parties' at the municipal level. We can only 'guess' what Ford's affiliations are, but that does not mean it can be used as 'valid' info for a Wiki entry. Citing travel arrangements, where Ford and his family visited Stephen Harper's residence as an attempt to place a stamp on Ford's "Political affiliation" is idiocy.

John Tory held a fundraiser for Ford, Sarah Thomson and George Smitherman (all different political stripes) does that suddenly mean all of them are of the same party?

- Ford at the hockey game. We only have a complaint report (which there is no link) to make the claim that Ford shouted out: ''You right wing Communist bastards”, "Are you a fucking teacher? What the fuck is it that you do?" and “Do you want your little wife to go over to Iran and get raped and shot?”'' POST THE EVIDENCE.

- "At a CP24 Mayoral debate, Councillor Ford referred to his political affiliations as a "Red Tory". - No link.

- This "Guilt by association" crap is stupid, Ford's wiki page is basically fueled by rumors and lurid speculation (with few links if none to back them up...only links to other pages with more rumors!)

I personally met a bunch of politicians in my life/shook their hand, talked/whatever. Does that suddenly makes me 'loyal' to any of them?

This Ford page brings out the worst of Ford's critics, it really needs a serious weed whacking.

Claimsfour (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's normal to discuss a person's affiliation in politics. Ford has worked for Harper and the Conservatives, and they have worked for him. It's no secret. All you are doing is being destructive. The cyclists do have an opinion of Ford. There is no conspiracy to bring Ford down. He has friends in media. But he is controversial, and says and does controversial things. Content that addresses that should be allowed, not simply ripped out because you disagree with it. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 00:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "The cyclists do have an opinion of Ford. "
 * That BBC (not even BBC) article which was an activist who made a video only interviewing a few select bicyclists is far from reliable. Where's the poll numbers?  Where's the hard data where Bicyclists are genuinely upset over Ford?
 * That BBC (not even BBC) article which was an activist who made a video only interviewing a few select bicyclists is far from reliable. Where's the poll numbers?  Where's the hard data where Bicyclists are genuinely upset over Ford?

'''I can go out right now and find a few dozen people all 'cyclists' who will say Ford is the most amazing human being on the face of the earth...does that make it so?'''


 * Oh right: Assumption is good enough for Wiki...
 * "But he is controversial, and says and does controversial things."
 * Says WHO?
 * I strangely you don't see 'controversial' statements made by other Toronto politicians
 * (like Adam Vaughan) end up on a Wiki page?
 * http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/12/vaughan-apologizes-for-blackshirts-remark
 * " Content that addresses that should be allowed, not simply ripped out because you disagree with it. "
 * Content that has no links/sources and are based on comedy sketches/hearsay.
 * So It's now "Wikirumours" right?
 * http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/12/vaughan-apologizes-for-blackshirts-remark
 * " Content that addresses that should be allowed, not simply ripped out because you disagree with it. "
 * Content that has no links/sources and are based on comedy sketches/hearsay.
 * So It's now "Wikirumours" right?
 * Content that has no links/sources and are based on comedy sketches/hearsay.
 * So It's now "Wikirumours" right?
 * So It's now "Wikirumours" right?
 * So It's now "Wikirumours" right?

Claimsfour (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claimsfour (talk • contribs) 01:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You obviously have an axe to grind. I believe there is no doubt that Ford says and does controversial things, like calling fellow councillor Mammolitti a "gino-boy" back in the early 2000s. That would be controversial in any article. I cannot speak about the other articles. I was trying to improve the Rob Ford article. I've added lots of information about the actual mayoralty. You seem to just think it is a hachet piece to your favourite man. But nevertheless, the article cannot progress without consensus. If you feel you can raise consensus, then you raise Requests for Comments or other things, not simply rant and rave about how bad Wikipedia is, etc... &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk )


 * See this article by the Globe and Mail: Ford is well known for this stuff. &#x0298;  alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 14:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 23, 2012 at 17:09 (UTC) because this dispute appears to be abandoned or resolved. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The dispute has not been resolved. But there definitely is apathy. But there is not much point to leaving the article locked. Although I think the edit warring will resume, the people who are editing the Rob Ford article are not coming to this page to discuss it. &#x0298; alaney2k  &#x0298; ( talk ) 20:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Riot Games


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

Vladcole, employee of Riot Games removing 'Action RTS' as a description for League of Legends on Riot Games' page due to calling it 'Valve's term'. Consensus was established as per Talk:Action_real-time_strategy. I am arguing that his reversion is heavily COI-influenced and ignores consensus.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

User is employee of Riot Games: WP:COI


 * 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  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?

tried posting on talk page, but he doesn't read it. Gave him consensus, he ignored it ("there's nothing there that would indicate that the term ARTS belongs in this entry.", misunderstanding how consensus works and why his entry constitutes a conflict of interest)


 * How do you think we can help?

Explain to him about COI and violating policy and to avoid COI and ignoring consensus.

&theta;v&xi;r    mag&xi;   contribs 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Comment Overmage doesn't mention that I very clearly state the potential COI on my editor profile and that there is no intent to hide the potential COI. Failing to share this information feels like a selective disclosure in the dispute process. Overmage correctly states that I did make an edit without adequate commentary. That was my fault and careless, and I have apologized. However, Overmage has mischaracterized the dispute here. The dispute in my opinion involves Overmage's overzealous reversion which had the effect of inserting the term "ARTS" as a prefix to the game name "League of Legends." Overmage appears to have made this edit merely as a way to get me to notice. In this edit [] Overmage wrote, "this is the only way to get you to notice." Reverting editorial work (without intent to improve the entry) is an aggressive way to grab another editor's attention and seems to be a violation of Wikipedia editorial philosophies. Note that the League of Legends page on Wikipedia already contains the "genre" information and Overmage's uncommented reversion has the effect of making the entry less legible, and less usable. I have read the COI guidelines and believe that my suggested edit (the removal of the term ARTS from the page) is appropriate and rationally justified. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there a requirement that game names be preceded by their genre, and this entry does not require such a prefix for clarity or quality. Vladcole (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment The original edit did not remove the prefix, but changed it from 'Action RTS' to 'MOBA'. The edit reason given was "Action RTS is a term used by Valve". Given the editor's background, this appears to me to be treading on COI ground. The fact that later on this was amended to "remove the prefix altogether" does not remove the fact that it seems like the desire was to remove a term another corporation is using.
 * Also, my second edit, while a way to get him to look at this thread (as he had previous ignored three posts I made on his talk page while reverting the changes I made, in addition to failing to post on the talk page before making edits), is also a genuine revert (which I had initially made before). I would like to point out that the change to remove the prefix was only made after I had once reverted it by pointing out that his initial change (Action RTS -> MOBA; 'Action RTS is a term used by Valve') was not COI-safe. The debate did not start out as 'remove prefix' vs 'keep prefix', contrary to Vladcole's claim.
 * As per COI it is often suggested that users with potential COI should first use talk pages to discuss before making changes; this was not what happened. Talk pages were not used before reverts were applied and changes made, neither the user talk pages nor the article's talk page. Attempts at establishing communication on talk pages were ignored for some time. Thus I assumed good faith that he did not read his talk page (rather than that he chose to ignore the talk page comments or the request for comments on the talk page before reverting). There exists content on the talk pages now but that is after the fact rather than during or before.
 * Faced with the prospect of an edit war with a user who did not check his talk page nor use article talk pages and communicated purely through edit summaries, I was not left with very much choice, and so I made that edit. You will see in the edit summary a link to this page, precisely made to point him to this page to let him know of an avenue for discussion before editing, so that we can resolve this conflict. Otherwise I feared that there would be continued misunderstandings due to the editor in question editing without checking for consensus or talk pages or any other avenue really, making it impossible to avoid an edit war. The entire point of that edit was to point him to this page and let him know it existed so we could actually talk about it. I have (as of right now) undone that edit as its purpose is served, and will wait for others to comment here before putting it back. &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 06:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Vladcole response: I want to offer one more rebuttal here, because I still don't think Overmage is characterizing the situation correctly. In just under three hours, Overmage made 14 edits to my talk page . The three largest additions of content occurred in under 2 hours . Rather than wait for me to respond, and rather than try to deescalate the situation, Overmage nearly immediately used threatening language, including this threat: "If I escalate this to an administrator, this discussion will go in my favor." . This quote is in conflict with Overmage's stated intentions, and felt heavy handed to me, especially given Overmage's far-superior grasp on Wiki markup and how rapidly my talk page was growing under his constant barrage of edits (which, by the way, had the effect of causing me to lose my work several times thanks to page edit conflicts). The insertion of the threat of administrative force into my talk page occurred a little over 2 hours after Overmage's first post on my talk page . Then, just 9 minutes after making this threat, Overmage had created this dispute here. . While it is true that I should have done a better job of reading and reacting to Overmage's edits on my talk page, it doesn't feel like he gave me enough time to respond. Furthermore, it seems that Overmage did not assume good faith on my part, and instead escalated the situation within minutes of threatening escalation. Perhaps Overmage feared -- given his initial emphasis on COI rules -- that I would go on to further tamper with the page in question, but a review of my edits would indicate that I have been fairly careful and methodical with the changes that I've made thus far and that my use of my real name and profile information are indicative of my desire to be entirely above-board with all edits, and therefore his concern and rapid and aggressive escalation of the situation wasn't warranted.Vladcole (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The COI possibility isn't an issue, it's what has been sourced. Are either adjectives sourced? If not I recommend not categorizing the game at all.Curb Chain (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both have reputable sources ( http://www.rtsguru.com/article/1736/Is-the-MOBA-Genre-in-Danger-of-Oversaturation.html, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/121695/InDepth_ActionRTS_Developers_See_Dota_2_As_ProfileRaiser_For_Genre.php for example) of their own. This was why there was a big debate on the Talk:Action real-time strategy thread, and if you will see there the consensus was established to call it Action RTS on Wikipedia. The problem here is that reputable sources for both can be found, so in such scenarios I would rather rely on community-established consensus. Currently there is no firmly established genre name outside of Wikipedia. But, we need to have a name for the page, and Action RTS was chosen as consensus (after a very long debate). If we cannot even use the names of genres reached via consensus on Wikipedia then why have the genre pages (or bother trying to name them, or make a consensus on naming them)?  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 08:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I've been away for a couple of weeks, I, like Curb Chain, am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. I believe that the Action RTS description should remain, but not for the reason stated by Overmage. The Action RTS description was first added in this edit on January 7, 2012, and was, I believe, unchallenged for three months until Vladcole changed it to MOBA (spelled out) in this edit on April 28. That change was promptly contested by Overmage in this edit on May 3. Having been challenged, consensus must be established if the change made to a stable article by Vladcole is to stand, pursuant to this section of the Consensus policy. Overmage is, however, incorrect that any consensus decision made at Talk:Action_real-time_strategy has any binding effect whatsoever on what is done in this article. Per the WP:CONLIMITED section of the Consensus policy, the only time such a consensus can control what happens in more than one article is when that consensus is elevated to a policy or guideline. Otherwise, what happens in each article at Wikipedia stands alone. If Vladcole wishes to pursue this further, then I would suggest filing an RFC to see if other editors feel that MOBA is a more proper description than Action RTS. If Overmage believes that the decision made at Talk:Action_real-time_strategy should be uniformly used in other articles, then s/he should propose it as a policy or guideline in the manner described at WP:PROPOSAL. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do not have any objections and stand corrected.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 07:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?

For over eighteen months, I've been struggling to convey to User:Marcd30319 that he is required to allow other users to edit and change the series of Carrier Strike Group articles which he has created. Marcd30319 has trouble with having other users make or suggest changes to his articles, for some time - see for example comments at the FA for USS Triton and. He's even sometimes removed maintenance tags without making required changes, as he's not happy with them. He will not allow other users to make changes to his articles, and instead of participating in discussions, he unilaterally reverts, or announces that he has himself made changes to all the articles in the series, and all other users' change suggestions should be posted on a section of the talk page, which he will consider. This is a problem because he imports enormous amount of U.S. Navy public-domain text which is difficult for non-experts to follow easily and has inherent POV problems, but he demands that it be presented his way, no other version.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Administrators User:Nick-D and less recently User:The ed17 have attempted to intercede.


 * 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  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 raised this repeatedly on Marcd30319's talk page, been insulted for my pains, with little effect, there's been some discussion over a year or two on User talk:The ed17, I tried to trial a revised format at Carrier Strike Group Two which got reverted, I've tried to trial a new approach through Peer review/Carrier Strike Group Seven/archive1, which first resulted in being told by Marcd30319 that I shouldn't edit the articles, and should only suggest changes on the talk pages, and then a demand that the Peer Review be suspended and a request that no-body else edit the articles. Thereafter he unilaterally completely changed the Carrier Strike Group Seven article whose revised format I was seeking comments on. He then made minor rewrites of the whole article series with other editors' changes reverted. I posted seeking advice on WT:MHCOORD, but was then directed here after a talkpage discussion at User talk:Nick-D.


 * How do you think we can help?

Independent reasonably senior editors need to examine Marcd30319's conduct, judge whether he is, as User:Nick-D and I believe, in flagrant breach of WP:OWN, and to recommend a path forward.

Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Carrier Strike Group One, Carrier Strike Group Seven discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''


 * For what it is worth, I have had past experiences with Nick-D and have found him to be reasonable, unbiased, and someone who follows both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This does not sound like an issue with content, maybe rather the behaviour of User:Marcd30319.Curb Chain (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my perspective as well. Marcd is a productive editor, and the series of articles he's created on the US Navy are generally quite worthwhile. However, he appears to regard himself as the chief editor of these articles, and frequently insists on approving significant changes to them. I agree with Buckshot's comments above, and I suggested that he raise the matter here (rather than, say, ANI) in the hope that comments from a wider range of editors would help influence Marcd to take a more collaborative approach. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a behavioural thing. I see he's been informed about Citzendium before (I was gonna steam in and recommend it myself but saw it) but it was over a year ago. Perhaps he could be encouraged to keep "his" version in userspace? I'm not sure what would happen going forward with edits if the versions began to diverge, but presumably the articles could be merged in mainspace farily successfully if that does happen. Certainly, we don't want to lose the likes of him if at all possible. Equally certainly, if it's him or WP:OWN there can only be one winner Egg   Centri  c  01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing we can do here if there is no solid dispute between one version or another. My impression is that there are concerns that the user is owning a few articles, but I don't see any proposal or complaints about specific wording.Curb Chain (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can quote litanies of disputes between one version and another, going back to protests by Marcd30319 about changes after the insertion of blocks of U.S. Navy-drafted text (Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships) . Most recently, would editors like to examine User_talk:Nick-D? Nick-D suggested at the Carrier Strike Group Seven peer review that in order to simply and clearly state for non-experts what a carrier strike group was, a listing should be included. I started placing a list of ships in the article intros, and had Marcd30319 mass revert them... Buckshot06 (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also @Egg Centric, he has all his old versions in his userspace. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are stating what happened. Is this a concern, or do you disagree with the revision and why?  Have you discussed why he shouldn't mass revert them, and why your version is better?Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I disagree with the reverts. I have tried to implement a suggestion from the PR, discussed the issue - see the linked discussion - and got no response except the mass reverts. Please take a moment to look at User talk:Marcd30319 and see how many times I tried to discuss this, including the notes I left asking him to discuss these issues, since I only got - repeatedly - reverts without discussion. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look through a number of the links above and I'd agree, it does look like a case of "owning", and I suspect it would be very tiring to deal with this form of behaviour over any period of time. How to resolve the problem without discouraging Marcd30319 from editing is less clear though. (NB: disclaimer, I'm sure I've commented on a peer review or review or something similar for one of these articles, but I can't work out which one.) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be coming so late but I had a guest over the weekend that stayed in the guest room which doubles as my office, and I had a major presentation at work that was due today. regarding this entire situation, quite candily and honestly, I bear a degree of responsibility.  I may be an irracible cuss sometimes, but I can work towards a common goal as shown in the GA Review and A-Class review for the USS Triton (SSRN-586) article which received a WikiProject Ships Barnstar from User:TomStar81.  Ditto the A-Class review for Operation Sandblast, as well as other articles that did not pan out GA Review Operation Strikeback and GA Review Carrier Air Wing Six.  I actually enjoyed the working with Buckshot06 on Exercise Summer Pulse, as well as the initial review of Carrier Strike Group Seven.  But I felt I was being excluded in the subsequent peer review as well as previous edits.  In conclusion, this isn't about ownership or control.  All I ever wanted was a seat at the table, to collaborate and contribute like I did for the USS Triton and Operation Sandblast, using the talk page as the best venue to do this. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:04 (UTC) Reason: No discussion for over three days


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

2012 in film
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 issue is whether the article should take a world view or focus on Hollywood films, Anglophone films, or films successful in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

JoseCamachoJr has not been involved in the discussion on the talk page, but at least one of his recent edits has been reverted.


 * 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.

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

I initiated the discussion on the talk page and responded to Dman41689. Following the intervention of Redsky89 I felt the need for neutral input to avoid escalation.


 * How do you think we can help?

Comments on the talk page under 'World view' would be welcome. As would any positive edits or reversions to the article page. The issue is whether the article should have a world view; if it should, how this can be achieved; if not, whether the introduction needs rewording or the page needs renaming. The flashpoints are (1) the inclusion (or not) of the film The Intouchables on the list of top ten highest grossing movies; and (2) the inclusion (or not) of the world view tag at the top of the page.

Wavehunter (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 in film discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Of course include films without a geographic distinction.Curb Chain (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs to avoid systemic bias. So on principle articles in this series should cover all cinema throughout the world. Correcting for that may take a lot of time, so start up a discussion on WikiProject Film, get ideas together, and see who is up for the task. Fans of world cinema will appreciate your efforts in the long run. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your comments. It seems to me correct that 2012 in film should cover important films wherever they are made. But I am encountering strong resistance to this idea. Where should we list a film released in France in 2011, but only gaining worldwide notability in 2012 following its German or US releases? There is the precedent of how 2011 in film was covered, and 2010, 2009, etc. And there are the sources of information used by many editors, which seem to be US (Hollywood) film websites. WikiProject Film sounds like a good idea. I am involved in this discussion because I believe in countering systemic bias, but I am not in any way a film buff. The involvement of some experts, even film fanatics, might help. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do discuss it thoroughly with people on the project. Personally, I am more interested in French films than in Hollywood ones, but film buffs might have strong feelings the other way. There is a series "2012 in literature", where again we would expect all literature of the world to be covered. You could see if there have been discussions related to that. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's note: I am going to close this in 24 hours as being filed at an improper venue unless someone objects. The text of this article has since August 2011 clearly specified that it relates only to films released in English-speaking countries (though which particular English-speaking countries may have fluctuated from time to time). The real problem, therefore, is not with what is included and excluded in the article, but with the title of the article. The proper means, therefore, by which to pursue this issue is through a requested move to a more specific title, so as to bring the attention of the broader community to bear on it. (I am presuming that there is no guideline or policy which establishes the current name as the proper name for this particular article. — And bear in mind that decisions at project pages are not ordinarily binding as policy or guidelines. — If there is such a policy or guideline, however, then the proper method is to propose a change to that policy or guideline, not to raise the issue here.) Another solution might be, of course, to start a new article entitled "2012 in foreign film" or some such. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TransporterMan. By all means close this. I'm surprised, however, that you think this the wrong venue. I read 'what this noticeboard is and is not' and my query ticks all the right boxes. It has brought useful suggestions such as your 'requested move' and that of ItsmeJudith with Wiki Project Film, so I am satisfied I came to the right place. I am also surprised at your claim on the introductory wording at 2012 in film, as there was no mention of English language markets when I came to the page on 15 May. There was, however, the word "domestic" (I removed it, but it has crept back). Domestic to whom? The word is as inappropriate to Wikipedia as "foreign". I am British, but I live in Mexico; for me, Hollywood films are foreign films. --Wavehunter (talk) 03:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. There was a limitation to films released in the US and Canada from, as I noted above, 29 August 2011, until it was removed in this edit on February 4, 2012. I'll study this issue more, but apologize for the false stop. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Wavehunter (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The more I've looked at this, the more I am uncertain about the proper outcome. There are 154 "[Year] in film" articles listed at Table of years in film, which would all seem to be USA-centric and largely redundant with Template:American film list, but also a gazillion Template:Lists of box office number-one films (each of which is actually a list of films by gross in each country per year, not just a list of the single #1 film for each country) and Annual lists of films released in various countries. I don't know if there is a consensus-based method to this madness or whether it is just a huge, unorganized mess largely driven by fans and having little, if anything, to do with Wikipedia principles, policies, and guidelines. There is also, I think, a question about whether the 2012 in film article may be different, due to internal rearrangement and qualification, than the preceding "[Year] in film" articles. I wonder if the best solution might not simply be a better "See also" link to Template:Lists of box office number-one films, rather than a link to just the lists of four specific countries. For example in the 2012 in film article, substituting, just after the "Highest-grossing films" subtitle in each "[Year] in film" article:
 * for
 * If any other editor or mediator/clerk has any ideas, please feel free to weigh in here. Otherwise, let me suggest that your best bet might be to start a discussion at WikiProject_Film about the issue. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If any other editor or mediator/clerk has any ideas, please feel free to weigh in here. Otherwise, let me suggest that your best bet might be to start a discussion at WikiProject_Film about the issue. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If any other editor or mediator/clerk has any ideas, please feel free to weigh in here. Otherwise, let me suggest that your best bet might be to start a discussion at WikiProject_Film about the issue. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:27 (UTC) Reason: Over three days since last discussion


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Oslo Freedom Forum
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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:No parking here keeps reverting changes that appear to violate a few Wikipedia policies (see talk page) after a consensus was reached on the talk page through civil discussion between myself and User:Meco to wait until we had a second verifiable source before adding a whole section. The updates also break with the norm and look to have an agenda (the 2012 participation list in particular). No parking here makes unverified claims on a BLP as well and passes them as fact. I do not want to revert his changes any longer and risk edit warring myself, so I am looking for some help.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

I added Meco only because he was in on the original discussion and made a talk page comment on No parking here under the Oslo Freedom Forum heading about edit warring. The edits have been going on between myself and No parking here.


 * 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  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?

Yes, the issue has been discussed on the article's talk page as well as notifying user No parking here about it on their talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Looking for some help coming to a consensus with the edits and an outside party's assessment of the edits, especially given the nature of them.

Wrathofjames (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oslo Freedom Forum discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Taking this conflict here seems a bit of an overkill to me. I would have thought it could be resolved at a lower level. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on what people write here and add my thoughts to that. __meco (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe this version can put an end to the discussion? --No parking here (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Meco- I'm not sure what lower levels there are? The talk page had an apparent consensus which No parking here continues to ignore, and I'm just looking to hopefully begin--and end?--the resolution process here and go no further. No parking here-You are just linking to the current (and disputed) version of the article with that link and it does not address any of the issues and previous agreements brought up on the talk page. That would not put an end to the discussion in my opinion. You have also removed previously valid sources. Wrathofjames (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To add a bit more to this for any third parties, a lot of the points have already been covered here, but the gist of my objection is adding a whole criticism section (which is about a BLP(s)--and probably belongs on that person's page rather than on the forum's page) which is based off a sole questionable source should wait for verification from a secondary, more reliable neutral source. The wording of the entry is also leading readers to believe certain events as factually accurate which is not yet the case, either. Wrathofjames (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:09 (UTC) Reason: Looks like this one may have been resolved. No discussion for over three days.


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Corrections Corporation of America


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

An editor, BlueSalix, started a section, "incidents," on the page and posted a comment and citation about a prison riot and fatality that occurred yesterday. User "Collect" removed the section and comment. I undid the revision and posted my concern on User Collect's Talk page. Collect then reverted my restoration and suggested this be resolved through consensus if I cared. Since Collect has disagreed with two editors, this would not be suitable to third opinion.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

User BlueSalix does not have a User page. Reviewing the pages, it appears there are chronic complaints about COI and bias favoring the subject corporation.


 * 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".)

Notified User Collect. User BlueSalix does not have a user page.


 * They do have a page. They just haven't used it. You can be the first. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just create the page and post the notification, them post a comment here when you have done so. (The "no user talk page" bit confused me as well the first time I ran across it.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, BlSa; just FYI, writing "I'm posting this to the Noticeboard. " in the middle of a long expository paragraph isn't really a proper notification of User:Collect. Proper templates are below.--209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  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


 * How do you think we can help?

Need non-partisan resolution of difference of opinion

Activist (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrections Corporation of America discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * There's been no discussion about this on the article talk page as of yet. Generally, that would be the first step. I'll check on this in 24-48 hours, if no discussion has taken place there I'll close this as premature. Others who frequent the board, if after this period of time the article talk page is still quiet, feel free to close. Regards, Steven Zhang  Talk 12:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I tried to resolve the dispute over legitimacy of the posting with USER:COLLECT on that editor's TALK page. Since that time COLLECT has reverted the posting and reposting of three editors. I outlined the dispute on the article's TALK page, per your advice. Activist (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As the person who made the original edit, I agree that this appears to be a clear case of edit warring. USER:COLLECT made three consecutive reverts of edits and for a reason that, without further explanation, appeared non-sensical. BlueSalix (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a dispute about the content of the article, and thus should be discussed on the article talk page. The reason we do things that way is that someone may have the Corrections Corporation of America page on their watchlist but not be watching the pages the editors who have worked on the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait, wait. Three consecutive reverts? That's WP:3RR violation. You should be reporting that to an admin, very clear cut. correct me if I'm wrong. &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 01:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not an automatic 3RR violation. The three-revert rule states: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." So it is not an automatic violation until he hits four. WP:3RR goes on to say "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." So you can report him at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, but instead I advise warning him on his user talk page with Template:Uw-3rr the next couple of times he gets close to the line. Our goal isn't to punish but rather to educate. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 26, 2012 at 14:14 (UTC) Reason: No Discussion.

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols


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

This request in in regards to user:LF's continued conduct towards the aforementioned article. In November 2011, user:Lachlanusername nominated this article for deletion as he deemed it "non-notable". The 1st AfD was closed at that time with the unanimous decision to keep the article. Then in February 2012, user:LF renominated the article for deletion for "non-notability". Upon investigation, it was discovered that Lachlanusername had changed his username to LF, so they were in fact the same person. The 2nd AfD also closed with the unanimous decision to keep the article. User LF then took the article before deletion review where it once again closed with the unanimous endorsement to keep the article. At that time, LF was warned that he might be guilty of keep listing 'til it gets deleted. And now, LF has placed the "notability" tag on the article's page. If this were the first time LF had referred to the article as being "non-notable", I wouldn't care, but it's not. I know that I could just delete the tag and I did, but then I reverted it as that's obviously not going to make LF leave the page alone and respect the three, unanimous decisions of the two AfDs and the deletion review to keep the article. And so, that is my issue: I am requesting dispute resolution as regarding mine (Neuroticguru) and LF's behavior towards the aforementioned article. Either the article is "non-notable" as LF says it is and needs to be deleted (even though it's passed two AfDs and a deletion review) or it is "notable" and LF needs to respect that decision and leave the article alone.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?



The other users that are being listed are those who participated in the AfDs and deletion review.


 * 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  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?

We have tried to resolve this issue through the aforementioned AfDs and deletion review. Feel free to follow the wiki-links in the overview or find those discussions on the talk page of the article.


 * How do you think we can help?

My purpose in submitting this dispute resolution request is for an outside, impartial party to help LF and myself reach an understanding. Personally, I would like LF to be banned from the article in question, but perhaps that's just me taking things too personally. So, I am requesting that someone or a group of someones on your end review the article and talk page discussions to see if the article and references are notable and reliable enough for Wikipedia inclusion as that is LF's concern. If you should find that the article and references are not notable and reliable enough for Wikipedia, then so be it. I will graciously concede to another deletion review or just straight-out deletion of the article if that's what's needed. However, if you should find that the article and references are indeed notable and reliable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I would request that LF respect that decision and agree to stay away (possible ban) from the page.

Neuroticguru (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''
 * Wow, this is still going on? Huh. It would indeed be nice if LF dropped the stick here. On the other hand, I know you're frustrated, Neuroticguru, but it's not vandalism to tag an article for notability, so please don't leave edit summaries like that. 28bytes (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do realize that it's not vandalism to leave notability tags on an article. The vandalism remark was solely because LF was the one that placed it and I felt that perhaps (due to his continued complaints and conduct) this had been done in bad faith and so the vandalism shoe fit in this case. However, after giving it some thought, I did revert my edit change as I knew it wouldn't be enough for LF to leave things alone. And that is why we are here. Thank you, though. Neuroticguru (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't vandalism, but it is disruptive editing, and in particular, it is a refusal to "get the point". Adding a notability tag to an article after it has been through 2 AFDs and a deletion review that endorsed the closure of the second AFD is essentially editting against consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what the dispute is here--we have one editor who keeps beating a dead horse versus the rest of the world, basically. That's not to say I fault the guru for having filed it; perhaps LF needs periodical reminders that they should drop it. How about this: LF, leave the article alone. Don't edit it, don't nominate it, don't question it in other forums, just leave it alone. The consensus is pretty clear, and further disruption (correctly elaborated on above by Whpq) will result in a temporary block to temporarily prevent you from doing it again. Consider this a warning. And now we move on. What is this band anyway? They're not the Reverend Horton Heat, so who cares? Drmies (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I'll add something, after closing Articles for deletion/Zia McCabe (2nd nomination). LF: do not keep relisting things. There is nothing in our policy or guidelines to prevent you from doing so, but you are being seriously disruptive. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with Drmies. If this page needs any more tags or nominations, someone else is capable of finding it and doing so. Rlendog (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed my name as a party, since I am not one.— S Marshall T/C 19:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To, it is a pretty weak article without significant secondary source material, and as its creator with 102 of the total 122 edits, I think you have WP:OWNership issues. Take a break from this article, and see what the community does with it. To .  WP:STICK applies and you are now being disruptive.  YOu have nominated it at AfD twice, gone to DRV once, and on all three occassions lost your case convincingly.  AfD and DRV are a far as you can go with this.  Do not renominate for deletion for at least 12 months since the last nomination.  You have made your view crystal clear, so walk away and see what the rest of the community does with it.  In the mean time, it does no harm.  To me, I think it is a case where our goal of comprehensibility won out over Wikipedia-notability for a single page.  I suspect that this page will in the distant future be cut back and merged.  But this is not for you to do, as you were the nominee of the two deletion nominations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, I completely agree with you that the article is weak and has no real significant secondary sources. In fact, I stated something to that effect during the 2nd AfD and the DRV (See those discussions for more details.) Here is a snippet though: "LF, you asked me how this album is notable, maybe it's not. If you really think about it, notability is completely subjective anyways. I understand that Wikipedia has its 'guidelines' on such matters though and I understand and respect said guidelines. I just thought I'd make an article about this double album. I'm only marginally a fan of the band. I do own this album, but it's not on heavy rotation for me. Feel free to use this information however you'd like to." (That last part still stands, by the way.) The fact is as I was looking at The Dandy's discography on Wikipedia, I saw that this album didn't have a page. Having actually created only a few articles before this one, I thought this would be a good place to start another. I now realize that I should've submitted the article to AfC and performed a lot of my edits in the "sandbox" first. Subsequently, I've done both of those things with the few articles that I've created since then and it does seem to save a lot of time and hassle. They're either accepted or rejected on the spot and I haven't had to spend time defending them in AfDs and DRVs. Also, I haven't had to edit war with anybody else...so far (fingers crossed on that). So, hard lesson learned. Also to SmokeyJoe, I am sorry that you feel that I have "WP:OWNership issues". It was not my intent to come off that way. The reason I have edited the page so many times was due to it being one of my first articles and I was continually trying to polish it in order for it to be a stronger, more cohesive and comprehensive article. And as one can see, the vast majority of my edits were checked as "minor". Again, I should've used the "sandbox" for a lot of my edits and I understand and accept full responsibility for that mistake. I have honestly tried to walk away from this article, but I've allowed LF to pull me back in in order to make more edits in an obviously futile attempt to appease his concerns. One can see that I've walked away from the other articles that I've started and I've left them to the community. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but I hope that this has explained my behavior to you and that you are able to understand where I was coming from. Thank you for sharing your comments though. If the article is nominated by another user for deletion, then so be it. If someone else places a "notability" tag on it, that's fine. Whatever. I will leave that to the fates. I just don't want LF to be the one doing the nominating again or placing "notability" tags on the article. How about LF and myself both agree to walk away from the article for awhile? I'm in, even if he's not. And perhaps LF needs to walk away from all articles Dandy related from the sound of things. It appears that he has either majorly edited and/or nominated quite a few of the said articles for deletion. It seems that he may actually be the one suffering from "WP:OWNership issues". Thank you to all involved for your time and comments. "I will fight no more, forever." -Chief Joseph Neuroticguru (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, article objectively doesn't establish notability and goes against Wikipedia's own policy for inclusion. End of story. LF (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the end of the story is that you need to walk away from this article. The community clearly disagrees with you, and further attempts to subvert their will is going to get you blocked.  Just stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What rational person in the world could be so single-mindedly obsessed with The Dandy Warhols, of all things? Sure, their cover of Primary on Perfect as Cats was uninspired, but come on, that's totally typical of tribute albums.  Is this Anton Newcombe?--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  00:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like User:S Marshall, I have removed my name as a party to this dispute, because I am not a party to it either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cory Booker
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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 Michael2127 has repeatedly generated strong POV content (partisan, imbalanced, hyperbolic language) on a current political dispute, Booker's comments about Obama ads criticizing Mitt Romney's job-creation claims. I and another user have substituted more neutral POV content. Each time Michael2127 reverts to his strong POV content, or expands upon it. He appears determined to exclude info about significant developments in the controversy that do not support his POV (Booker's retractions of his earlier statement).

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

Chimino appears to be a careful and judicious editor, his rewrite of this controversy is easily the best. Michael2127 on the other hand appears to be grinding a very large axe.


 * 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  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 the talk page. Michael2127 speculated for no apparent reason that I might be Cory Booker, and otherwise little was resolved.


 * How do you think we can help?

Compare Chimino's and any/all of Michael2127's versions (in Other Activities), and comment on them. I'm pretty sure that most editors will find Michael2127's strong POV edits to be inappropriate. I see from his page that he has been warned in the past.

72.86.133.249 (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the following replies from the dispute listing above, as otherwise it may not be clear who said what. Further discussion should go in the discussion section. Thanks — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 01:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments on the above text by Michael12127

My edits were not POV at all, they were balanced containing all point of views. I even let the above anonymous user make MAJOR edits to my original entry and even complimented him for it on the Booker Talk page. However he insists (and has now been joined by Cimino) on editing the controversy to only present Booker's point of view, which is highly POV and inappropriate. Michael2127 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to have neutral editors compare the versions and see which contains a balanced point of view. I'm more than willing to make/allow edits to my version. What I think is inappropriate is only presenting Booker's point of view. Michael2127 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cory Booker discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' I was told of this dispute on my user page. I attempted to write a balanced synopsis of the recent controversy, which would appease all viewpoints (based on available sources), only to be completely reverted. Matter of fact, Michael appears to completely revert every edit made on it, by users other than the OP and myself, and is bordering on "rogue editor/edit warrior" status.--Chimino (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)22:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say the exact same thing. I find your attempts to be unbalanced and only presenting Booker's side.  And you're the one that seems intent on erasing every edit that I've made.  Glad to try to find a balanced compromise.  As long as you're willing to include info other than Booker's side. Michael2127 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Chimino, I incorporated the sentence/reference you added about how Romney used Booker's remarks as part of his campaign. That's definitely relevant.  Not sure what else from your edit might usefully be added, but if you think there's more, glad to discuss it... Michael2127 (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Chimino, I agree Michael2127's editing is going rogue. He seems to see the controversy as an opportunity to take political potshots at Democrats, rather than treating the summary of events as informational only. Michael, why are you inserting comments in the foregoing section summarizing the dispute? It's making it unclear what was written by me, and what by you, up there. 72.86.133.249 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am a Democrat, not that it's any of your business. See, while you're trying to examine political points of view and push them, I'm trying to lay out all the info in a balanced manner. Michael2127 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We seem to be debating in two seperate areas; I'll await admin input before I continue here. Also it would be helpful if you two could add an extra set of colons with each response (to make it more clear who is saying what). Thanks--Chimino (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Chimino and I are working this out on the Cory Booker talk page. I've added some of his entry and am fine with his other suggestions so far, so at this point the entry is about half his, half mine.  I think we can work this out without requiring administrator intervention, though that's welcome if you feel it's necessary. Michael2127 (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think administrators may very well need to look this entry over. Michael says he wants to work it out, but for him that means trying to retain as much editorializing as possible, all of it tending to dismiss the significance/genuineness of Booker's retraction of his criticisms. Michael still doesn't seem to accept that an encyclopedia is not the place to score political points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.249 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Hello everyone, I thought I'd jump in here and give my opinion. (By the way, I'm not an administrator, and you don't have to be an administrator to volunteer here.) I was a little concerned about the tone of some of the earlier remarks on the talk page, but thankfully things seem to have calmed down a lot since then. When discussion becomes heated and remarks get personal, it becomes much harder to resolve what would otherwise be an easily-solved issue. So if all the editors involved remember to assume good faith, then I think this can all be worked out on the talk page.

Regarding the content, we must be very careful to respect the biography of living persons policy, which requires that coverage of living persons is written conservatively, and the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy, which requires that the amount of coverage we have for the events in Booker's life be proportional to their significance in reliable sources. I see that a spirited debate has taken place on the talk page regarding the degree of significance that can be inferred from the current sources, but I don't think we are in a position to be able to judge the significance of it just yet. This is still a breaking news story, and we won't actually know how relevant this incident is to Booker's life until we can observe how it is covered in, say, future general-purpose biographies of him. The policy on this, that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the advice in the essay on recentism are well worth bearing in mind.

My opinion on the matter is that we should cover the incident, but keep the amount of coverage as short as possible while still keeping it neutral. If we can fit it in a couple of sentences, so much the better. The incident has generated a lot of media coverage, to be sure, but the main reason for the coverage is that it involves the Obama campaign and that this is an election year; I suggest that we keep this short until we can judge how the news stories are picked up by other tertiary sources, or in future news reports. Although Wikipedia can be edited straight away after an event, the content we cover changes on a scale of months and years, not days and weeks.

As for the neutrality of the coverage we provide, I think the main thing is that we clearly present Booker's comments as directed against attack politics in general, rather than against the Obama campaign in particular. The Obama ads were what triggered the comments, yes, but the fact that he also mentions Jeremiah Wright is a pretty good indicator that it's not just the Obama campaign that he is speaking against. It's even more clear if we look at the full quote:

"But the last point I'll make is this kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity, stop attacking Jeremiah Wright. This stuff has got to stop because what it does is it undermines, to me, what this country should be focused on. It's a distraction from the real issues. It's either going to be a small campaign about this crap or it's going to be a big campaign, in my opinion, about the issues that the American public cares about."

After making it clear that the remarks were addressed at the tone of both the Obama and the Romney campaigns, I think it would also be a good idea to include enough of the reactions on each side that the reader can understand that the remarks caused a big news story. Anything extraneous to that should be trimmed out, though, in my opinion. Also, on a slightly related point, the coverage looks a little strange under the "Other activities" heading. Either it should be moved to the section on his second term as mayor, or perhaps a better solution would be to include more background about his activities as a surrogate to the Obama campaign, and to include the coverage of the news story together with that.

Sorry for the length of the post! Thanks for reading all the way through, though, and let me know what you think of my suggestions. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius on tour  (have a chat) 03:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of your points. I think this whole thing should only be one basic paragraph, like my original. The anonymous editer insisted on inserting a lengthy section about Booker's post-controversy comments/damage control, even though nothing he said in these responses has been particularly newsworthy.  If anything, these appearances were noteworthy for their lack of any substantive retractions that changed the story, as I demonstrated with multiple sources.  There's not room in Wikipedia to describe every important incident that happened and then include minor details about the way people responded.


 * The only point I would make to you, Stradivarius, is that focusing solely on the Obama campaign angle is only half the story. The public reaction has been equally about him declaring private equity off-limits for attacking.


 * Given your points above, my points above, and the latest comments on the talk page, I think it's best we just cut this back to one basic paragraph explaining the incident. So I'll do that (mostly leaving Chimino's edits, not mine), and if/as the story develops in the future, we can edit it if necessary. And I will include one SHORT sentence summarizing Booker's response, to appease the anonymous editor, or anyone who shares his feeling that Booker's response was important Michael2127 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said, Mr. Stradivarius; the information was probably best summarized in historical perspective a month or months from now, but I guess what's done is done. It will also relocate to its own section at some point as well...--Chimino (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Michael2127, why must you personalize everything? This is NOT about appeasing anybody. This is about presenting a factual record of whatever is significant. You cannot reasonably claim that Booker's comments were important in declaring that private equity be off limits from criticism, and simultaneously hold that his statements subsequent to the brief MTP statement are trivial, unnoteworthy, and not substantive. That simply makes no sense; his subsequent comments radically revised what he had said about Obama, Bain, and private equity.


 * You have not even presented an accurate factual record of how this editing controversy unfolded. I did NOT insert a "lengthy section about Booker's post-controversy comments". I inserted a single sentence with a link to his interview...which you went ballistic about and repeatedly deleted and ridiculed. What I had presented before you intervened was exactly the kind of trimmed down account that this user has suggested there should be. It has been your insistence on excluding or trivializing Booker's revisions/clarifications that created this editing controversy. And here you are still digging in and insisting that you're going to marginalize the part of the story that you don't want to see told. This entry is not about your personal views. 72.86.175.37 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most everyone's comments. My addition is that from the national visibility viewpoint, the Meet the Press and the Conan O'Brian incidents are important to Cory Booker's notability beyond the New Jersey level. While I agree that from Cory Booker's "life or career" perspective these incidents are going to be relatively minor, they are going to be more important from the notability perspective and therefore I believe should be covered in greater detail than the incidents' importance than would be warranted from just the career perspective. When someone looks up the Cory Booker article, the article should contain information about at least what the person might have heard about prior to Wikipedia. That means the Meet the Press and the Conan O'Brian incidents should be covered in fair detail.Zugman (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So, Michael 2127 offers to allow a summary of Booker's revised viewpoint about the Obama criticisms of Romney. Great. And this tendentious and vague sentence, without any link, is what he actually inserts: "Booker responded by emphasizing his support for the Obama campaign but did not retract his basic point about private equity." An inadequate summary that avoids stating what Booker actually did and everything that is significant about Booker's revised statements. Also, it's highly misleading to say he "did not retract his basic point". Booker did exactly that. Originally he said that Obama was in the wrong because he was attacking private equity as such. Later he acknowledged that was not the case, and therefore Obama was not in the wrong. Editing this entry cannot be left to Michael2127, he continues to impose his strong POV even on the most basic of facts. 72.86.174.143 (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My edit contains both sides. I noted everything you said above about him standing behind Obama's campaign.  But I also included the more widely-noted reaction to his response (which you persist in denying) which was that he had no interest in revising his point about private equity.  I've now updated it with one of the many references that stated this. Michael2127 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Impossible to reason with you. You make things up (I never denied that some pundits ridiculed his retraction, I said pundits' opinions are of minor consequence to this encyclopedia). You cling to straw men and trivia (who really cares that Booker stands proudly with private equity, given that he now admits that Obama wasn't attacking private equity?) while excluding highly relevant info that doesn't advance your POV (e.g. Booker's flat out assertion that Obama's criticisms of Romney are legitimate). Multiple users have criticized multiple aspects of your biased and unbalanced editing, some of which points you have gradually accepted, and yet you continue to insist that the problems here are due not to your editing but mine. Nobody but you has criticized a word of my editing. 72.86.174.143 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made further clarifications to the entry which should satisfy any reasonable person that it's a balanced presentation. I have no expectation to please you, you're anonymous and I have no idea what your history is, so I'm pretty much done responding to you.  One other person has questioned my editing, Chimino, and we compromised, and I'm happy to discuss any further changes with him. Michael2127 (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One minor correction: unless the name on your birth certificate is "Michael2127", User 72.86.174.143 is less anonymous than you are. Because he chose to not get a user name, I can see his IP address, which tells me that he is in the general area of Emmaus, Pennsylvania. Because you have chosen to edit under a username, I have no way of finding out who you are or where you live. So please don't criticize IP editors for being "anonymous." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Minor retort: I only criticized his anonymity after he repeatedly made spurious challenges to my editing history. So I responded that his anonymity prevents me from seeing any of his editing history...where he lives is much less important.  I have no problem w/ IP editors - unless they're bad editors. Michael2127 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage User 72.86.174.143 to get a username. Unlike some websites, Wikipedia does not require email or any other sort of confirmation and Wikipedia does not retain any information that isn't already retained when you edit as an IP address. That being said, you are welcome to edit as an IP address as long as you wish. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Trying Something New
OK, let's try resolving this one step at a time. Clearly the above discussion is pretty much an extension of what you folks have been arguing about on the article talk page and is getting you nowhere. Are you willing to try something new?

First, I want you to stop talking about other editors. No personal pronouns. Just a laser-like focus on different versions of article content.

Second, I want you to stop quoting edits. I want you to post diffs instead so I can see the original wording. (let me know if you need a quick lesson in creating diffs) Here is an example:


 * I made an edit and it was reverted Was the revert justified? FakeName3117 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 1901 (UTC)

Short, simple, focuses on one edit, and allows us all to examine that edit and make a determination. Being a diff, the context is a click away.

(Doesn't have to be a revert. Could be a "was this edit proper" question.)

Do not comment when you post the diffs Just present the edit and let us all look at it. Then we can discuss just that one edit or revert, come to a conclusion, then go on to the next edit, chosen by another editor. We can easily evaluate five or ten in a day, and it will become clear who needs to change what they are doing and why.

Are you willing to try this? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm willing to do that, if anyone wants to make any challenges to what's up there. I think (hope?!) that we've already resolved this, though?  The entry is about half Chimino's work, almost half mine, and some others mixed in.  Seems we've sort of got consensus. Michael2127 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's even better! Are you sure you don't want to start calling each other Nazi pedophile bedwetters just to spice things up a bit? :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, does everyone agree that the problems are resolved and this can be closed? (you can always open a new one if problems resurface) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 28, 2012 at 09:11 (UTC) Reason: Appears to be resolved.


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution


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

As an expert in the Fourth Amendment, I noticed a number of errors on this page. I wound up making a number of changes to the Introduction article, carefully explaining in the Talk page what needed correcting, discussing how to correct it, then saying what I was going to change. SMP0328 disagreed with only one of about a half dozen changes I made, then, without waiting for any discussion or discussing any of the other issues, he reverted all of my changes.

I think it would be great if SMP0328 and I could discuss the issues and come to consensus, but I cannot discuss issues with someone who declines the most basic cooperative protocols.

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  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 discussed the issues extensively on the Talk page. SMP0328 disagreeed on just one issue, and declined to discuss the other issues.


 * How do you think we can help?

Maybe someone could encourage SMP0328 to discuss the issues on the Talk page. That might not be the ultimate solution, but it might make some issues narrower.

Alternatively, someone with an interest in the Fourth Amendment could discuss the particular issues with me so we two could reach enough consensus to make narrow, focused changes that SMP0328 would not silently revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 15:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DavidForthoffer (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' SMP0328 has great credentials on Wikipedia concerning law. Too bad that does not translate into civilized discussions. I don't have those credentials, but I do operate transparently, try to discuss issues, and try to give legal rulings with direct quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court as much as possible. Note: After viewing the last 100 changes and viewing the Talk page, it seems SMP0328 has done a great job keeping spam out, though not contributing much in the way of content. I would like to improve the content. DavidForthoffer (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You speak of civility, but then engage in personal insults. The changes you want to make to the 4A article do not improve the article. I explained my reasons for reverting you in the accompanying edit summaries and in the article's talk page. SMP0328. (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any personal insults. For my edification, please tell me how I personally insulted you. If you are referring to, "Too bad that does not translate into civilized discussions", I retract that, even though it was factually true. How about you retracting your personal insult of me ("your opinion of Katz and Jones is irrelevant")? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidForthoffer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you only "explained" one of five changes on the article's talk page, and that was with two bald assertions without any cites at all (and which I think are false, as I had responded, with a cite). DavidForthoffer (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, you both need to cool down. In particular, you need to go back and re-read the big blue box at the top of this page. The dispute resolution noticeboard is for disputes about article content, not user user conduct issues. I advise that you both stop talking about each others conduct and focus narrowly on the content of the page, keeping your arguments calm, logical, and evidence based. After you finish DRN, you can revisit the user conduct issues if you choose, and anyone here will be glad to point you to the right noticeboard for doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. The Talk page has calm, logical, evidence based arguments for my proposed wording. SMP0328 has yet to offer any evidence based rebuttal. DavidForthoffer (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are still talking about another editor instead of about the content of the article. Try again. Or, if you really want to talk about user conduct instead of article content, I can close this and you can bring it up at WP:WQA.


 * Also, you need to make your case here. In general, DRN mediators look at specific talk page edits that you provide diffs for. We may browse around the talk page and notice other things, but don't count on it - it is a lot of work crawling through a talk page history and guessing which part someone is referring to. Let me know if you require help making diffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ergo, David it would help if you posted your actual arguments and the reasoning behind them (rather than stating you 'have logical arguments'), then invited SMP0328 to follow suit.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 01:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My last post above was not criticizing SMP0328. It was giving a status of the Talk page. Here's another status. SMP0328 has been posting some good comments and we have had some productive discussions, and have even reached consensus on one of the five issues in dispute. I think a discussion of the issues should stay on the Talk page until or if we reach an impasse. Thank you both for your contributions toward resolving this dispute. This is my first DR, so I'm still learning protocols. DavidForthoffer (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Alas, I don't think WP:DRN can help you. We are limited by this policy: DRN is for discussing the content of the article. DRN is not for discussing the conduct of other editors. Thus we can not help when your comment contains words like "SMP0328 has been..." SMP0328 is an editor, not an article. Clearly you wish to talk about the conduct of other editors instead of the content of the article, so I am going to suggest that you bring this issue up at WP:WQA. They have some very good mediators over there who are quite good at dealing with user conduct issues, whereas I am more of a "just the facts" engineer who is better suited for discussions focused upon the contents of Wikipedia articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, WP:DRN has helped. It has stimulated a productive discussion on the Talk page that has resolved one issue and has promise to resolve more. Based on what you and  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs said, it now seems to me inappropriate for me to have moved my first post in this section ("SMP0328 has great credentials...") from the Users involved section and should have instead deleted it. At the moment, I do not have any user conduct issues with SMP0328. I certainly appreciate you being a "just the facts" engineer and may well ask you to discuss the facts influencing the content of the Article, but not right now. Thanks again for your efforts. I'll post here if SMP0328 and I reach an impasse again. DavidForthoffer (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Haitians


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

I have added notable Haitian-born beauty pageant contestants to list of Haitians. Both candidates were notable due to their participation in teh Miss Universe pageant. They were born in Haiti, hence qualify for addition to list. Warring editor removes them saying that they are not notable outside Haiti, therefore they can't be added to the list. This is nonsense! Many lists for people of various nationalities such as List of Dominicans and List of Puerto Ricans include pageant contestants who made inroads in their respective countries but might not be well known in Europe, USA, or elsewhere. That doesn't mean that they are not notable!

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

User is irrational and I have told him to only comment on article on talk page and not on my own page.


 * 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 - I have e-mailed User:Student7 @ 2:38pm ET on May 25, 2012.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 *  N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text  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?

Re-added and discussed on talk page, but editor is completely irrational when it comes to logic.


 * How do you think we can help?

Provide at least three third-party opinions to validate inclusion of figures on the list.

XLR8TION (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Haitians discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Beauty pageant winners are not notable outside of the beauty pageant so that is why they should not be included in that list.Curb Chain (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that winning a beauty pageant does not necessarly cause the winner to be notable outside of the beauty pageant, some beauty pageants promote their winners well enough throughout the year that winning such a beauty pageant would cause their winners to be notable outside the pageant. The Miss America pageant is such a pageant. Whether the Miss Haiti pageant is one should be decided by looking at both the popularity of the pageant world wide and by looking at the popularity of recent winners. Popularity might be measured by Google hits, comparing with Google hits of people already on the List of Haitians. I think some research is called for, but I'm not going to do it. DavidForthoffer (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: It looks like this is the revert in question. Also, as a side note, Ad-hominem arguments like "User is irrational" and "warring editor seems to be in grade school" generally won't get you very far. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the talk page of the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * a) I was informed by XLR8TION that the discussion must be held here. Is that true?
 * b) I have not called anyone any names. I was trying to explain that for places, the notable person (and they are) notable, must be known outside the place. Otherwise, all mayors, governors, presidents, etc. would be notable. This is a place-specific limitation. So a Miss Universe Haiti would indeed be in a list of notables for her province, hometown, and school. If she had won the International competition, then indeed, she should be on the list. I don't think that was the case here. And no, Miss Haiti's duties inside Haiti would have no bearing on this, no matter how extensive. Same with every president of Haiti, ambassadors from Haiti, Supreme Court Judges from Haiti. But only for "List of notable Haitians." Notable at local level articles. And they might be notable for other reasons. A lot of people have heard of Christophe, Jean Lafitte, Toussaint Louverture, etc. Those are the type of people we need in here. In any list, there should not be very many notable moderns. Unfortunately, I am no judge of modern musical groups and I have to reluctantly leave that category to someone else. But they are subject to the same criterion.
 * c) Some applicable guidelines are WP:NOTLINK, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTWHOSWHO. And common sense. The list would be in the hundreds, if not thousands, if all notables were allowed. This would be impossible to watchlist-edit. Student7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Student7, I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were calling names...the quotes above were both from XLR8TION. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am a volunteer mediator here. Re: "I was informed ...that the discussion must be held here. Is that true?", before you read the rest of this answer, please go to the top of this page and read Guide for participants (it's in the third blue box down). The following answer assumes that you have read it. There will be a test (just kidding!).

There is no hard and fast rule saying you must discuss the dispute here, and indeed some editors have a good enough working relationship that they resolve things on the article talk page and then request that the discussion here be closed. That being said, the usual case is that you are here because you could not resolve the dispute on that article talk page. If someone else wants to try to resolve things here, you certainly could try discussing the issue on the article talk page, but do not be surprised if nobody responds -- they might want to try giving WP:DRN a fair try instead of trying something that didn't work before.

OK, getting back to that "Guide for participants" above, did you read the "What this noticeboard is not" section? We really don't want to hear about user conduct issues. We want to focus on the content of the page. Look at the first two comments in this section by Curb Chain and DavidForthoffer. No talking about other editors, just about what the article should contain. They got it right. Now look at the comment by Adjwilley and your (Student7) reply. He started talking about user conduct instead or article content, and you replied by talking about user conduct instead or article content. I am not blaming either one of you - it isn't an obvious thing - but the process goes far more smoothly if all of you stop talking about each other and focus on what is in the article. After the article content issues are resolved I can point you to a place designed for discussing user conduct. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, I was a bit surprised at being brought to this level where an arbitrator was required. I thought I was just starting to explain the whys of the article content to what I had thought (incorrectly, as it turns out) was a relatively new editor, XLR8TION. Suddenly, we seem to have a houseful of "interested" editors. Who knew? :) Also, XLR8TION, who seems to have named me alone (in red, yet!) as "a person of interest" has yet to comment here. He directed me not to comment further on his page. I did once . I guess it was found offensive. It was deleted. My goodness! What did I say?


 * I'm lazy. I deliberately follow along very slowly behind edits, hoping beyond hope that the vandals have been dispersed by the time I get there. This usually works! :) In this case, I was so far behind, I had no idea there was a "dialog" on the discussion page. So the "invitation" to resolution dispute completely blindsided me. Had no idea anyone had reached or was reaching the end of their rope, as it were.


 * With apologies to Guy Macon, who was encouraging us to discuss the article, not each other. I did try to make my case above. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. I have followed Adjwilley in trying to return to the discussion page of the article. But it probably won't be any tennis match since I follow a long way behind in my watchlist! I hope no one will be offended, but I am not watching this page because of the "other" ongoing discussions. If anything comes up, maybe someone will let me know? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: May 27, 2012 at 18:54 (UTC) Reason: Apparently resolved

Joe Pasquale
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="background: transparent; text-align: left; border: 1px solid silver; margin-top: 0.2em; " ! style="background-color: #CFC; font-size:112%;" | Closed discussion <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white; font-size:112%;" |
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion 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?

Hi, I believe that the Joe Pasquale page has been blocked from editing by a fan or possible a PR company looking to protect their client from being shone in a negative light. He is hardly a controversial figure and I believe that no blatant vandalism of his page was undertaken before this page was protected for editing by user nuclearwarfare.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?

If you look at the talk section of the article Joe Pasquale you will see comments added by other people with regards to his joke stealing. People have previously tried to add this to the article only to have that revision edited out or to be blocked from adding it entirely. His joke stealing is well documented in the national press of the United Kingdom and by other noted British comics such as Stewart Lee (who also did a joke about Joe Pasquale's joke stealing).


 * 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  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 not attempted to resolve this issue as other users have made it clear about the bias in the article on the talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

By removing the protection of the Joe Pasquale page allowing other responsible users to edit the page and remove its bias.

90.206.156.18 (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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


 * I am a volunteer mediator here at DRN. I have contacted the admin who applied the protection, and I will report back here when I get more info. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There were several OTRS tickets about this a while back. is an example of one; there are up to four more. I dropped the protection down to semi-protection. It really should be at pending changes level 2, but, well...the community has issues with that. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Does everyone agree that this issue is resolved and this discussion should be closed?


 * One final word: the "blocked from editing by a fan or possible a PR company looking to protect their client from being shone in a negative light" accusation was way out of line. Wikipedia Administrators (the only people who can apply blocks) do not as a general rule conspire to keep material out of the encyclopedia, and if we find out that they have, they will very quickly cease to be administrators. You should have simply asked why there was a block rather than making baseless accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to close it. I just want to note that the OTRS tickets are not office actions so they are requests for certain material in certain articles to be changed, and if the filer wants to pursue that route to get whatever material changed he can, but this forum is not said avenue.
 * Someone bold please close this as I have commented.Curb Chain (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, OTRS is the venue to address this issue, not DRN. I've looked at the ticket linked above and the action seemed necessary within the bounds of the BLP policies. Closing as resolved. Steven Zhang  Talk 07:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * }

Kid Icarus


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

Repeated removal of Kid Icarus fan game which I have established notability for.

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  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?

Yes, initially on Indrian's talk page, then on Kid Icarus talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

Help determine if the game is notable and should stay.

PeterAmbrosia (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Kid Icarus discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' The first step is to discuss this issue on the Talk page of the article. It looks like a discussion was started there just 2 days ago on 25 May, and there are only 2 brief comments so far. The initiator of this DRN (PeterAmbrosia) has not event commented there yet. A LOT more discussion needs to happen there before escalating to this DRN page or to an RfC. As for the inclusion of the fan-game in that article: I would point out that (1) the test for notability of a paragraph/sentence within an article is much lower than the WP:Notability test for an entire article (see Notability); and (2) The Talk page discussion on this disputed material needs to focus on the sources that discuss the fan-game. List the sources; present quotes from the sources;  discuss the prominence of the sources;  compare with other WP articles that include mentions of fan-games. The mere fact that the fan-game may be distasteful or even illegal is no reason to exclude it. Also, the fact that the initial version of the fan-game material was poorly written is not a reason for removing it: see WP:IMPROVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. --Noleander (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'm going to copy your comments to the talk page which are relative to the actual dispute, Noleander. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Frederic Marcotte


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

I asked editors to help me polish my page. I'm french, and i also wrote a french page. Editors asked for quick delete of my page, erased important information like date of birth and links to Facebook and Souncloud, and did not help with the Infobox. i'm really upset about this destroying my page instead of helping build it nicely.

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  in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute Supergirl36 (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
 * How do you think we can help?

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


 * Supergirl36, you need to go to Talk:Frederic Marcotte and ask the other editors why they made the changes they made. WP:CONSENSUS explains the process. There is also a French Version available. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The speedy was declined and I provided advice, what is there to resolve here?  Я ehevkor ✉  22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a volunteer clerk/mediator for DRN. There is nothing that you in particular need to resolve. Declining the speedy was completely proper. Here at DRN we try to help people even if they came to the wrong place or asked the wrong question. In this case, Supergirl36 did not appear to know that she should have tried resolving her issue at the article talk page, so I explained that to her with links in English and her native French. Right now I am waiting to see if she "gets it" and will close this discussion as resolved once I know that. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that, Guy. When I got the notice I thought I was being dragged into some huge disagreement that had nothing to do with me.  After all, I had only made a couple of small edits to the page.  Now I see that Supergirl36 just didn't understand the escalation process.  I'll head to the talk page now.  Ah!  There's nothing there...  Dismas |(talk) 00:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)