This is an old revision of this page, as edited by North8000 (talk | contribs) at 10:29, 28 February 2012 (→At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:29, 28 February 2012 by North8000 (talk | contribs) (→At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability discussion)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles, content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button 
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.
| Do you need assistance? | Would you like to help? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Request dispute resolution
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
Become a volunteer
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Autism | On hold | Oolong (t) | 30 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 4 hours | Oolong (t) | 2 days, 13 hours |
| Imran Khan | Resolved | SheriffIsInTown (t) | 24 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 17 hours |
| Battle of Ash-Shihr (1523) | On hold | Abo Yemen (t) | 19 days, 2 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 13 days, 6 hours | Abo Yemen (t) | 13 days, 6 hours |
| Movement for Democracy (Greece) | In Progress | 77.49.204.122 (t) | 10 days, 3 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 1 days, 11 hours | Hellenic Rebel (t) | 1 days, 8 hours |
| Urartu | In Progress | Bogazicili (t) | 4 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 hours |
| Wesean Student Federation | On hold | EmeraldRange (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 2 days, 7 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 2 days, 7 hours |
| Jehovah's Witnesses | In Progress | Clovermoss (t) | 1 days, 2 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 10 hours | Steven Crossin (t) | 10 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1971
 | Closing as resolved. Further discussion should occur on the talk page or with an RFC. See closing comments. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
There are a disparity in the sources regarding the numbers of Pakistani armed forces who surrendered during this brief conflict. They range from 90k to 95k. We have solved this by deciding to cite both high and low end numbers. Another disparity are that some people think this number includes civilians who were also interred. The majority of sources I have looked at (see Here) say that the 90k figure were all troops and do not seem to include civilians. Some sources say 90k troops including 15k civilians I am reading this "including" to mean "as well as, or in addition to" Myself and the other editor are now at an impasse and would like a little input. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk page discussion, already linked to above.
Another opinion on the issue might help break the impasse. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Template:Cue First of all, I would like to say that you all seem to be doing an outstanding job of discussing this neutrally and have avoided creating a full-blown dispute. I haven't had time to fully research the topic enough to give a third opinion, but what I would like to say is that this issue may be better suited for RFC; it doesn't seem like we have an argument here - merely a research impasse that could benefit from another opinion (exactly what RFC is for). I'll need a little time to look at all the material, but I'll try to weigh in as soon as I'm familiar enough with the issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue I'm currently in the process of searching on EBSCOhost and other research databases I have access to through the college (unfortunately, these aren't available on the general web, but most of them have ISBNs, so we can still use most of them). I'm trying to see what figures are quoted by academic sources (most of these articles are scholarly, peer-reviewed periodicals, so they're definitely reliable). I'll admit there's not a whole lot available (I'm an American, and this is not an historical topic that gets much discussion in our colleges), but I'm going to do my best. The State Department had a little bit on it, but nothing involving Okay - I've had a difficult time finding any sources other than the ones that have already been discussed on the talk page. However, based on what I can see, I think this might be a case where both points of view are valid assessments of the sources. The question is how to include this in the lede section. After immersing myself in the issue at hand, I can easily see how this has become a bit sticky. Again, though, I think you are all doing an excellent job of keeping your cool. This is quite a puzzle, especially since there seem to be so few reliable sources related to it (perhaps, to my DRN colleagues - if any of you are from across the pond, you may have an easier time knowing where to look) - and the few sources that are available seem to have conflicting figures. I think the best solution to this may be to include the figures together but mention that there is some question as to the accuracy of such a figure. ("Between 90,000 and 93,000 members of the Pakistan Armed Forces were taken prisoner by the Indian Army. Some sources report that this figure includes up to 15,000 civilians; however, these sources are unclear as to whether that is included in or in addition to the total POWs from the Pakistan military.") I admit, it's not ideal, but based on the sources we have, I'm not sure there is a better option at the moment. Based on what I can see from the sources, I think the civilian total is included in the 90-93k total, but that's obviously not clear-cut, and the point here is to give the most neutral evaluation possible. If anyone has a better suggestion, I'm sure we're all ears. I'll keep looking for additional sources in the meantime, but I honestly don't think I'm going to find any in this ethnocentric American database I'm using. Sleddog116 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Note: Just a quick note to everyone here: You may not have realized this, but Misplaced Pages's Prisoner of War article defines a POW as "civilian or combatant". In my view, that seems to suggest that we should define it the same way here. I'd recommend against changing the POW article without first discussing it on that talk page, but I'm just putting it out there for you guys to think about. Sleddog116 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Proposal: I have another possible solution. Why don't we avoid using the term "POW" altogether? My suggestion is that we give a range (from the most conservative estimate to the most liberal), and instead of saying "members of the Pakistan Armed Forces," we simply say "Pakistanis". We could then also present the fact that sources disagree on the number of civilians included in that figure. This way, the range that we give can unequivocally include civilians and military but also use all sources accurately. That's not really OR - it's simple math. Does anyone wish to add any comment? Sleddog116 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:Cue Query - Has an RfC been opened regarding this issue? Broader community input may be a good option for this dispute. Otherwise, maybe the presence of a mediator (with a case filed at the Mediation Cabal would be a good way to move this forward. Thoughts? Lord Roem (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Closing Comment:Thanks for the suggestion, Lord Roem, but I think the discussion is moving forward here rather nicely (albeit somewhat slowly). Of course, I'm just one of the DRN people. The ones involved may feel differently. Given the fact that the article in question seems to have moved on (looking at the history), though, I think it's probably time to close this discussion as resolved. Most of the editors here seem to have accepted at least some version of the above proposals, so I don't think there's any sense in beating a dead horse. If anyone would like this reopened, however, I think it might be better to follow Lord Roem's suggestion and add a request for comment on the article's talk page. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Major Major Major Major
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
On 22 January 2012, I turned the article Major Major Major Major into a redirect, saying in my edit summary, "+ redirection of page not meeting WP:N or WP:V;" diff. Four days later, 192.31.106.34 (talk · contribs) reverted the redirection, saying on the talk page, "Some joker changed this to a redir to Catch-22, citing policy but not going through the correct process of page deletion as he should have. It was exceptionally sloppy work, as it created a number of circular links he didn't bother tracking down and fixing. If you're going to WP:BOLD, do it right. No excuse for laziness." I rebuffed the user's accusations, gave my rationales again, and asked their input on how to proceed. When I received no input after 3.42 weeks, I redirected the page again, pointing to my explanations on the talk page.
Nine and a half hours ago, RMc (talk · contribs) undid my redirection with no explanation. On his talk page I asked the user about this edit and his rationale behind it; he or she instead removed my inquiry without comment.
I've never encountered a user who simply disregards my inquiries and just flat-out ignores me. I don't want to start an edit war, but I don't know what to do next in this unprecedented situation. Should I disregard this most recent user's actions and take the article through AFD? Should I continue to try and engage them and prevent conflict over further edits or actions?
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Fourthords (talk · contribs)
- 192.31.106.34 (talk · contribs)
- RMc (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Not yet.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Major Major Major Major}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Part of my problem is that the editors involved have made it clear they aren't interested in communicating.
- How do you think we can help?
What is my next step so as to not aggravate the participants yet still tend to this articular chaff?
— Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Major Major Major Major discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Template:Cue Hello Fourthords, and thanks for posting here. This doesn't look like a suitable article to bring to AfD, as your desired result is redirection, not deletion. In this case I'd simply start a merge proposal as per WP:MERGE, and get an admin to close it if that seems necessary. That would seem to be a suitably drama-fee way of finding out whether there is consensus to redirect or not. Does that sound like a good idea to you? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 04:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- My only concern here is that I don't think the content at Major Major Major Major should be merged to Catch-22; wouldn't actually wanting a result of redirection in a conversation at WP:MERGE be misusing the purpose of that page? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough - in that case, you could just make it a "proposed redirect" rather than a "proposed merge". As long as you are clear about it in the discussion, I don't think there would be any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Template:CueDepending on the notability of the article, it may require deletion. Ask, "Is this article notable?". On this criterion alone, if yes, it should not even be redirected.Curb Chain (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think in this case the redirect would be useful, assuming that people can be bothered to type out all those majors. (I see that Major Major Major is already a redirect to Catch-22, but that Major Major is a disambiguation page.) And redirects don't have to be notable, they just have to be useful, as they are navigation aids. If you have a look at the deletion policy, you can see that it gives redirecting as one of the alternatives to deletion if a page is unsuitable to be an article. Also, lack of notability is not one of the reasons given at reasons for deleting redirects. However, whether an AfD discussion or a merge proposal, it seems clear to me that in the case of Major Major Major Major we need to open up the discussion to a wider pool of editors to find a consensus on what to do. Just letting the debate between Fourthords, RMc and the IP continue with no outside input is not going to be the most efficient way of dealing with this situation. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A long term edit war situation involving whether an "under discussion" tag should remain in place in the lead section.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
- Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs)
- SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
- Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)
- Dreadstar (talk · contribs)
- Doc9871 (talk · contribs)
- Newbyguesses (talk · contribs)
- Littleolive oil (talk · contribs)
- 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs)
- S Marshall (talk · contribs)
- North8000 (talk · contribs)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
But they were all notified with broken links from this template-generated message that became obsolete when you retitled the section: – Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
There is discussion of a sort at WT:V, however, there is no discussion that can lead to a solution of this content dispute.
- How do you think we can help?
Content dispute
NewbyG ( talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Template:Cue Question: Hello Newbyguesses! After a quick peek at the talk page of the page in question, it does seem there has been a long-running disagreement about the tag. Have you tried an RfC yet to get broader community imput? Lord Roem (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello User:lord Roem. Yes, I think 3 rfc's have been tried. If you were to examine sections suppressed from the talk page, you will see that I tried to initiate a 4th. No user was prepared to take up the discussion. Thank you for your promptitude. I have to go out now, in the RW, cheers, I will return. NewbyG ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Of course explaining the overall situation at this page would require a book. But on the very narrow topic, I think that when an RFC was tried there was no consensus to remove it and subsequently there have been more verbal maneuvers for a double standard, to the effect that a consensus is needed to change the status quo on the content and that a consensus is needed to keep the status quo on the tag. On a second note even a briefest look will show that the tag is appropriate.
- On the more promising side, my assessment is that there are no big roadblocks to coming up with something that 75% could live with which could result in legitimately remove the tag. I have proposed this several times in the "let's take this somewhere" sections. There has been no opposition to it, but a lack of attention to resolving it. The main distractions have been a group of folks with a warrior mentality with a fixation on removing the tag without resolving it, i.e. steps towards "burying" the discussion/issue rather than resolving it. Second is folks who are working on 8 other non-contentious issues at the same time which de-focuses/gridlocks-with-complexity the effort to resolve the 1-2 contentious issues. Suggestion: come up with a resolution on the 1-2 contentious issues which 75% can live with (VERY doable) and then legitimately remove the tag. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am the one who removed the tag. Reportedly I was the 8th person who tried do that. I really don't understand what you are trying to archieve. This is one of the most well established and widely accepted policies. It's critical for Misplaced Pages, without it there would be endless dicussions with fanatics, crackpots, delusional, isnane and misinformed people claiming they're right and the sources are wrong, with no way to resolve such disputes. There is no relevant discussion on the talk page. The only "discussion" there is about whether or not should the tag stay, without a single post about how and why should the policy change. It was perfectly appropriate to remove the tag. The fact that Elen of the Roads and S Marshall requested a checkuser on me is completely ridiculous. It's plainly obvious that this is not an honest concern about the policy, but purely disruptive behavior. You and S Marshall are either trolling or unable of clear judgement. Also, both accounts (North8000 and S Marshall) should be investigated for meat/sockpuppetery.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think Elen of Roads called this dispute WP:Lame. There is much wisdom in that observation. As I understand it the tag side wants it there and has kept it there for 1/2 a year or more. The no-tag side notes that the discussion tag links to the whole talk page {not to any discussion) where the policy is always under discussion and that the policy is a central pillar, so why have the tag there in perpetuity. Both sides edit war over it constantly. I don't know if neutral eyes can find some middle ground (or negotiate a stop to the lameness) but I think it a distinct service to the community, if you try. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I believe the dispute is WP:LAME and edit warring over it is disrupting the project to make a point. The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cue I appreciate all the comments here - I think I understand this dispute much better now. NewbyG, when you have the chance, if you could write a short (but focused) explaination of what your position is? I think responding to Elen's specific critique may be a good place to start.
Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cue I appreciate all the comments here - I think I understand this dispute much better now. NewbyG, when you have the chance, if you could write a short (but focused) explaination of what your position is? I think responding to Elen's specific critique may be a good place to start.
- Yes, good idea. I think that I can agree with what Elen has said, and also most of what North has said. In particular, The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. The edit raw is lame. The lead section of the policy page will not be resolved while argument continues over what the tag is for. As for edit warring, I have edited there exactly once (1 time). There is little interest from me in following up on whether users have edit warred and disrupted, unless that is the only way to restore order.
- My contention is that the tag is now not contributing to an orderly discussion. We can discuss at the page, in perpetuity, no tag is needed on the page. Either discussion happens or not. As North points out ,the fact that there are other discussions going on makes it difficult to sustain a focused discussion. (Of course, I must comment here that any cluefull examination will conclude that the efforts to *retain* the tag for all this time have resulted in inferior discussion, and disruption.) I have not participated in any previous (non-consensus) RFC’s. I am new to this page, and most dismayed at the lack of progress and lack of progress in determining a course of action in a forward direction. That’s all I can say just now, I want to reserve some energy for editing in main space.
- Apologies about the broken links which went only to the first couple of users before I tidied that up. NewbyG ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC).
- The tag has one purpose: to mark the section with a badge of shame until certain conditions are met, supposedly righting an egregious wrong that the community demands to be corrected by any means necessary. The fact that the tag itself now is supposed to be essentially considered part of the wording of this policy is just not right, IMHO. The "new consensus" for this tag to remain here in perpetuity seems to consist of the only two editors who continually reinsert it; even arguing now that it's the "stable version" and that there's actually consensus to keep the tag here forever. Most editors that I have seen comment on the tag either a) want it gone, or b) are ambivalent enough about it not to edit war to keep it in place for all eternity. Doc talk 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Template:Cue If this is right, I think then WP:ANI might be a better place for this (if its a conduct issue of editors reverting to make a point). Lord Roem (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I participated in the big RfC, but I have been uninvolved with this page otherwise. I have scanned the talk page, but I have not had the time to read everything, so forgive me if I suggest something that has already been going on, or if I have got completely the wrong idea. First, I also agree that the edit war over the tag is WP:LAME, but as simply removing the tag has not worked we will have to try something else. I think we need to remove the tag, but to do it in exchange for something, so that everyone can be satisfied that the discussion on the matter has not simply been put on the back burner. Second, the talk page discussion is seriously lacking structure - if we are going to come up with a resolution we will need to be much more efficient than we have been.
I have the rough outline of a plan to deal with this, so please hear me out and see what you think. It would be in two stages. Stage one would be a mediation between the current participants on the talk page, where we work together to create two or three drafts of the policy to present to the community in a new RfC. If I were to mediate this, I would request that the participants agree to the removal of the tag as a condition of the mediation. Other mediators may choose to do things differently. Stage two, as you have probably guessed, would be a large-scale RfC where the community could decide on which of the presented drafts they like, if any. If I were the mediator, I would ask that the tag be reinstated for this stage, as it would be a useful advertisement for the RfC. Again, other mediators may decide that something else is appropriate.
If we bear in mind the feedback we got from the last RfC, then this process should have a good chance of finding consensus. Even if it doesn't, then it would just be a matter of rinsing and repeating until we get one. If we do it this way, then the entire process shouldn't take more than a couple of months, and I would personally be aiming to get through the mediation phase after two weeks and the RfC phase after the standard 30 days, with no drawn-out debates over closing. I'm sure this plan can be refined, and as I haven't been following the debate closely there are bound to be things that I have missed, so any pointers would be most welcome. I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hello everyone. I haven't been involved specifically in the dispute about the tag, but I am currently involved in content discussion on the talk page. I would also like to be involved in a mediated discussion, which I think is an excellent idea. I must say, though, that I can't agree with 90.179.235.249 's comment: "There is no relevant discussion on the talk page". On the contrary, serious GF points and proposals have been made by both critics and defenders of the current policy page content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Lord Roem and Mr. S: So you are aware there was/is an essentially resolved although technically open discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review please that appears to have precipitated this filing; as you know, administrative action has its limits in settling any content dispute, since that's not its purpose. I would encourage the parties to work with both of you, either on the tag thing, or even larger picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the overall situation needs a very good organizer rather than a mediator. Let me do that (wearing a second hat North8000-org that must have zero opinion on the issues) and I bet we could solve the entire issue (which 14 months has made no progress on) in a way that 75% can support and 90% can live with in 6 weeks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- From the peanut gallery, sounds like a bad idea. If you've been involved for 14 months!, one would think you would have done so by now. I rather recommend review of this principal recently enunciated by Arbcom:
- I think that the overall situation needs a very good organizer rather than a mediator. Let me do that (wearing a second hat North8000-org that must have zero opinion on the issues) and I bet we could solve the entire issue (which 14 months has made no progress on) in a way that 75% can support and 90% can live with in 6 weeks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sober eyes
2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.
Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- If folks don't want it, fine. But if you will take a close look at my involvement, you will see that on the main issues my thoughts and participation are very low key and sort of "in the middle". Roughly speaking, my proposals have been to merely explain the contested three words along the lines of what the body of the policy says, and leave them in. Where I come out swinging is when the process and framework for resolving this gets threatened or attacked. One was when the RFC got hijacked, and my opinion was exactly the same as Jimbo's (he did explicitly weigh in on it and said that the first close was a proper close and that what happened next was not right). Second is when people who have an opposing opinion are threatened. (the "looks like you need to be investigated" crap) And third is that the tag is essential to preserve the somewhat middle ground and impetus needed to resolve the issue, given that the wording preferred by the minority (-in-the-big-RFC) is what is currently in there. In short, my "disputes" have been only on things to preserve the process, they have not been on the main issues. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I want to say on the mediation question is this - Mr. Stradivarius would be a fine mediator to help you all work this out. I would hope you would take his offer seriously. Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, North, hopefully my last comment. All that can be discussed and you can share your view, and they can share their perspective, and at the same time everyone can demonstrate their commitment to the consensus process and moving forward. Last. I promise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I want to say on the mediation question is this - Mr. Stradivarius would be a fine mediator to help you all work this out. I would hope you would take his offer seriously. Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've been named here, although I haven't been following what I gather is the recent disagreement over the tag. I've worked in the past to try to help find compromise wording, but more recently I've been tuning out the tl;dr. Some random thoughts: I think the suggested mediation might perhaps be quite helpful. It's a good idea to link the removal of the tag to agreement by all "sides" to a particular plan of action where something is done in return. I also think it would be a splendid idea for everyone involved to just take a six-month break from the whole thing. I heartily agree with Elen about the lameness of it. North, I don't think that most participants would accept you as a neutral party, although I have always found you to be very helpful there (and the IP's suggestion that you and SMarshall are in cahoots is unfounded). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I only offered and thought it might be accepted because the following situation exists: On the main "issue" there is no conflict, just a lack of any organized moving forward. On the real conflict (the tag) the only way to resolve it is to move forward in the area where there is no conflict. So I was only offering to be an organizer, not a mediator, because that area needs an organizer, not a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, and I wasn't finding fault with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the role required is primarily an organizational one. I was using "mediator" as a catch-all term, with the idea that there are as many styles of mediation as there are mediators (and arguably as many as there are mediation cases). This organizational job would be different from content mediation in that there is no need to work out one single version (we can save that for the RfC), and we don't need to stick to a neutral point of view. One thing I think the role will have in common with content mediation, though, is that the participants will need to trust the person in charge. North, if the others involved are willing to trust you to do this, then that's great - let's go with that. If not, then it will probably save a lot of hassle if someone else organizes things. Let's see what a few other editors think about this before making any decisions. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer, user:Mr Stradivarius. That approach seems quite acceptable. This matter is getting a bit messy, though. The IP editor above has now been blocked for 48 hours, apparently for the post above. This could seem like an attempt to muzzle discussion. At WP:ANI, there is now a thread, "Request for block review". NewbyG ( talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I only offered and thought it might be accepted because the following situation exists: On the main "issue" there is no conflict, just a lack of any organized moving forward. On the real conflict (the tag) the only way to resolve it is to move forward in the area where there is no conflict. So I was only offering to be an organizer, not a mediator, because that area needs an organizer, not a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Tryptofish was mentioned, I believe, because of this edit, and it was indeed a long time ago. So what next? I don't know how carefully anyone else has looked into the history of this tag, but I have done my homework. From its initial announcement it was immediately questioned. When another editor pointed out that "disputed" might not be a good way to tag it (and another editor agreed), this was a point apparently not taken many months later. Initially, other editors helped to link it to a discussion that was live, to justify the tag. No ones's touched that discussion since November. Now, the tag is truly just a black mark. North8000's offer to "organize" this nightmare any further... I personally find to be very "out of touch" with the situation. Doc talk 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Blush, I didn't even remember that. But yes, it's a long time ago, and I have trouble seeing how it would be an issue now, except as a matter of historical "interest". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Constructive discussion is continuing right now at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, and North is playing an honorable part in the discussion. However, if a mediator or organizer is to be chosen, I think it should be someone who hasn't been taking part, such as Mr Stradivarius. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Doc, just clarifying, my offer was to organize a way forward on resolving the reason for the tag, not on the discussions about the tag itself. On the former my views have been sort of low key and near the middle; not so on efforts to remove the tag without resolving its reason. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
This issue is and likely will be under discussion for a very long time. The fundamental problem here is that while removing "Not Truth" is preferred by a 2 to 1 majority, the opposers insist on keeping it, claiming previous consensus (way back in 2005 I think and not in a big Misplaced Pages-wide vote). But then, you do have to live with the natural consequences of that, which is continuing discussions. It's a bit like why opposers of gay marriage in California could shut down gay marriages from being performed, but obviously, they could never stop the efforts to legalize this. The monentum is clearly with the people in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Here the momentum is toward getting rid of "Not Truth", Jimbo even favors a much more radical text in which unverifiable knowledge by a single trusted Wikipedian can be included. Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a go at drafting a mediation page at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, to show people what a mediated discussion might look like in more detail. If enough of the involved users think this is a good idea, then we can press ahead with it. I have decided to put my money where my mouth is, so my name is now down as the mediator. Of course, it is up to all the parties whether they accept my involvement in this role. Before anyone agrees, I should warn you that I intend to keep things highly structured, and that I would be strict about refactoring/archiving discussions that go off-topic.
Please take a look at the mediation page, and see what you think. In particular, please look at the ground rules and the mediation agenda to get an idea of how the process would work. Also, could everyone take a look at the list of users that I made, add anyone that I have left off, and remove anyone who shouldn't be there? And most importantly, if anyone isn't willing to undergo mediation, then please tell me as soon as possible. This mediation will only gain real legitimacy if all the main users involved are willing to take part. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I am boycotting Misplaced Pages for matters unrelated to WP:V. Please proceed without me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know. It's not so much a problem if people don't want to take part in the process at all - I'm more worried about people that want to participate in the policy discussion, but object to mediation for whatever reason. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Could you clarify, is the subject of the mediation the tag itself or resolving the underlying reason for the tag? The former without the latter is just throwing gasoline on the fire. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for letting me know. It's not so much a problem if people don't want to take part in the process at all - I'm more worried about people that want to participate in the policy discussion, but object to mediation for whatever reason. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I am boycotting Misplaced Pages for matters unrelated to WP:V. Please proceed without me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Columbo, List of Columbo episodes
| Brought to a Mediation Cabal case here. Lord Roem (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
The article Columbo is overloaded and excessively long. Some of us had agreed to move a couple of sections to do strictly with television data to List of Columbo episodes. There is one editor who will not allow this change to be made. Users involved
My fear is my zealous aims toward this article may have chased away everyone except Rangoon11. I'd like some help and consensus-building; I only want to see this improved as it ought to be.
YES.
Resolving the dispute
Discussion: see talk page of Columbo; Admin intervention: see Columbo-related post to Salvio giuliano; attempted RfC on talk page, which went ignored; attempted major edits to improve the article, which were reverted by Rangoon11 in various acts of edit warring.
I stated above. --Djathinkimacowboy 01:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Columbo, List of Columbo episodes discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
--Djathinkimacowboy Rangoon11 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
"Texan" versus "Texian"
| An RfC is the next appropriate step for this content dispute. Lord Roem (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Some users are changing all usage of the words, "Texan" and "Texans" to the archaic words, "Texian" and "Texians" throughout the many articles having to do with Texas History. Various discussions have taken place on some of the articles' Talk Pages, but a consensus is needed, but has not been forthcoming. The wiki article entitled "Texian" begins with the words, "Texian is an archaic demonym which defined a resident" which is accurate. While Texian can be found in some, but hardly most, documents from the Revolution and Republic days. It is virtually out of usage, now, except when quoting period articles which originally made use of the term. Users involved
Yes
Resolving the dispute
There are several discussions on many pages, the one on "Texas Revolution" Talk page is the most thorough which I have seen.
By agreeing with me! That is, that "Texan" is to be used without being reverted by others EXCEPT when quoting from a period document which uses the archaic term. The only current usage of the term "Texian" seems to be limited to Supporters of Houston Dynamo soccer club, and to battle re-enactors. cregil (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC) "Texan" versus "Texian" discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.Template:Cue - Query - Has any attempt at opening a RfC been attempted? That may be a way to get more commentary from un-involved editors in discussing this dispute.
All time:
Before 1846:
Before 1837:
I am not modifying what is written above, because I am instructed not to modify it. However at 21:10, February 25, 2012 I was invited to add to this discussion. I am exercising my right to promptly participate where I was invited. I was invited because somewhere I changed "Texan" to "Texian" in the name of consistency. That is my POV on this issue: Consistency. "Texian" is arguably right in some contexts. I don't want to do the arguing. Have some experts on the period decide, and keep it consistent. Randall Bart Talk 20:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
|
United States debt-ceiling crisis
| Needs to be discussed on article talkpage before bringing here. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dispute overview
Added important information and need help incorporating it to the article. The information is about credit rating outlooks and watches. The article only mentions credit ratings. Probability of default is also related to the history of outlooks and watches than just by a current rating. User jrspriggs (who has posted anti-american material related to islamic revolution) keeps removing material and citing it as inappropriate. He refuses to compromise by suggesting improvements and instead keeps removing it. Spriggs also added a section to the "Talk" portion of the webpage calling the material inappropriate and suggesting it is spam. Users involved
User jrspriggs could be an extremist
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Undone jrspriggs' removals.
Help me incorporate the information into the article as it is educational and very relevant. HedgeFundTrader (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC) United States debt-ceiling crisis discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.First off, no personal attacks. Calling Jrspriggs an "Islamic extremist", both here and at the talkpage, is a serious lapse of good faith. Comment on the edit, not the editor. Next, discuss this on the talkpage. A thread has been opened there, but less than ten minutes before you opened this DR thread - you need to give Jrspriggs and other editors time to respond. Thirdly, there appears to be no justification for the link being inserted into the article, much less at the very top. It isn't being used as a source to cite any information, and thus appears to be spam. Finally, be aware that abuse of multiple accounts is not permitted. The edit in question appears to have been added under three seperate identities - I will take a look at the contributions of all three to determine whether or not an investigation is necessary. Yunshui 雲水 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
|
Carlingford Lough - Location field
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
Carlingford Lough uses the Ocean template. The location field is being disputed. Currently the location states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border". The change I would like to make is to change the location to "Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border". This is for 2 reasons - 1) there is a map of Ireland used to point to the location, not a map of UK and Republic of Ireland 2) The article already refers to the location as on the Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border 3) it is more precise. The argument against is that Northern is not considered a country by some users even though the Article refers to Northern Ireland several times and 2) that the current info box does not allow for Northern Ireland in the location field, which isnt true.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute?
Bjmullan, has been involved on multiple disputes on this page, and received a block for edit warring.
- Shame you never mentioned your own block here as well..... Bjmullan (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)
Yes.
- N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text
{{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Carlingford Lough - Location field}} --~~~~in a new section on each user's talk page.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
This is a long running issue it would appear.
- How do you think we can help?
I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved
Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Carlingford Lough - Location field discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.I agree with Gravyring's points, and find the opposition to this edit more perplexing by the fact it is adding to the inconsistent manual of style that the opposition of this edit maintains in the article.
- The articles lede states: "Carlingford Lough (Irish: Loch Cairlinn; Ulster Scots: Carlinford Loch or Cairlinfurd Loch) is a glacial fjord or sea inlet that forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south."
- The infobox's "Basic Countries" parameter states "Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland"
- "Location" parameter states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border"
Not very consistent.
The edit would firstly create balance and consistency, and secondly is only an edit that makes it more precise. The parameter in question doesn't even state "country" in it, it states "location" and if Northern Ireland isn't a location, and if it doesn't share a border with the Republic of Ireland then something is seriously amiss.
Mabuska 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have looked at the article lead. From the point of view of an uninvolved reader, the more specific reference to Northern Ireland is helpful in placing Carlingford Lough and is consistent with the map shown. UK is obviously a much more general reference. You could qualify the reference to Northern Ireland if needed and/or wanted and say "the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom." Again, the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader and would be better, in my opinion, even with the UK qualifier.Coaster92 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
My oppositions to this change is based on the fact that Gravyring wants to removed an article link (Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border) and replace it with simple text. I believe that this article is of benefit to that user and should remain. If we want to consider consistent then we should consider using the two sovereign states in the article rather than a sovereign states and a province of another.Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories: