Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

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.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

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 gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252

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

• Major Major Major Major (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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)

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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)

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:

Sober eyes

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

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

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

If folks don't want it, fine. But if you will take a close look at my involvement, you will see that on the main issues my thoughts and participation are very low key and sort of "in the middle". Roughly speaking, my proposals have been to merely explain the contested three words along the lines of what the body of the policy says, and leave them in. Where I come out swinging is when the process and framework for resolving this gets threatened or attacked. One was when the RFC got hijacked, and my opinion was exactly the same as Jimbo's (he did explicitly weigh in on it and said that the first close was a proper close and that what happened next was not right). Second is when people who have an opposing opinion are threatened. (the "looks like you need to be investigated" crap) And third is that the tag is essential to preserve the somewhat middle ground and impetus needed to resolve the issue, given that the wording preferred by the minority (-in-the-big-RFC) is what is currently in there. In short, my "disputes" have been only on things to preserve the process, they have not been on the main issues. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All I want to say on the mediation question is this - Mr. Stradivarius would be a fine mediator to help you all work this out. I would hope you would take his offer seriously. Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, North, hopefully my last comment. All that can be discussed and you can share your view, and they can share their perspective, and at the same time everyone can demonstrate their commitment to the consensus process and moving forward. Last. I promise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've been named here, although I haven't been following what I gather is the recent disagreement over the tag. I've worked in the past to try to help find compromise wording, but more recently I've been tuning out the tl;dr. Some random thoughts: I think the suggested mediation might perhaps be quite helpful. It's a good idea to link the removal of the tag to agreement by all "sides" to a particular plan of action where something is done in return. I also think it would be a splendid idea for everyone involved to just take a six-month break from the whole thing. I heartily agree with Elen about the lameness of it. North, I don't think that most participants would accept you as a neutral party, although I have always found you to be very helpful there (and the IP's suggestion that you and SMarshall are in cahoots is unfounded). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only offered and thought it might be accepted because the following situation exists: On the main "issue" there is no conflict, just a lack of any organized moving forward. On the real conflict (the tag) the only way to resolve it is to move forward in the area where there is no conflict. So I was only offering to be an organizer, not a mediator, because that area needs an organizer, not a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and I wasn't finding fault with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the role required is primarily an organizational one. I was using "mediator" as a catch-all term, with the idea that there are as many styles of mediation as there are mediators (and arguably as many as there are mediation cases). This organizational job would be different from content mediation in that there is no need to work out one single version (we can save that for the RfC), and we don't need to stick to a neutral point of view. One thing I think the role will have in common with content mediation, though, is that the participants will need to trust the person in charge. North, if the others involved are willing to trust you to do this, then that's great - let's go with that. If not, then it will probably save a lot of hassle if someone else organizes things. Let's see what a few other editors think about this before making any decisions. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, user:Mr Stradivarius. That approach seems quite acceptable. This matter is getting a bit messy, though. The IP editor above has now been blocked for 48 hours, apparently for the post above. This could seem like an attempt to muzzle discussion. At WP:ANI, there is now a thread, "Request for block review". NewbyG ( talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Constructive discussion is continuing right now at 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)

It's aimed at resolving the underlying reason for the tag. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear (but obviously not). The idea is to have another large-scale RfC on the "verifiability, not truth" issue, giving the community a few different choices as to how the policy should look. The tagging issue would be taken care of as a by-product of resolving the larger issue. I would stipulate that the parties agree not to edit the tag at all as a condition of accepting mediation - in return the mediation process will give the participants a guarantee of getting the issue resolved in whichever way the community decides. (Of course, this depends on the good-faith participation and cooperation of all the parties.) Did you take a look at the mediation page I drew up? I have laid the process down there in more detail. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. I guess it's just the inherent complexity that there are two disputes:

1. The underlying one over content, which has basically cooled down into friendly discussions that are going nowhere
2. The recent dispute, which is over efforts to remove the tag without resolving the underlying reason for it.

If you are reaching reach back to include parties that were active in the previous big debate/dispute but now inactive (as you did with SlimVirgin) you are missing about 20 people so some clarification on which it is to be is needed.

After seeing the RFC process being manipulable to being a roadblock to any change, I have some reservations about it being the final test of a proposed change, but that does not appear to be your approach. My gut feel is that I'd agree to abide by those rules, and would support and participate in the mediation/initiative. But this would not preclude friendly/non-controversial efforts to seek a quicker solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

About the participants - I was hoping I could get your help with that. :) As this mediation is aimed at settling the big debate over "verifiability, not truth", we really need to invite all the people who were originally involved with it. I haven't looked to see exactly who that was - I just took the list of participants in this DRN thread and added Kalidasa777 and Blueboar as I thought they would be interested. If you could add people who I've missed to the MedCab case, I would be very grateful. I will also have a little look through the archives to find people who will likely be interested, but there's always the chance that I might miss some people. I'll also post a notice on WT:V when things are ready to go, so people who are active there now should see that even if they are not included. Of course, people are free to join even if they haven't had any involvement in the discussion so far.

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

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

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

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

Focusing on the tag rather than the reason for it would be quite a departure. The approach that has been outlined on the mediation page is to resolve the reason for the tag. Trying change that to discussing removing he tag without resolving its reasons would be just gasoline on the fire. Or, more accurately, like relighting the fire and throwing gasoline on it. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since this issue is now being addressed with mediation, would it not be appropriate to close out the discussion here? Steven Zhang 21:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 (talk · contribs)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs)
• Mabuska (talk · contribs)
• Gravyring (talk · contribs)

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

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

1. The articles lede states: "Carlingford Lough (Irish: Loch Cairlinn; Ulster Scots: Carlinford Loch 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."
2. The infobox's "Basic Countries" parameter states "Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland"
3. "Location" parameter states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border"

Not very consistent.

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

Mabuska 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

There is nowhere in the article that specifies that we are dealing with sovereign states or provinces of another. It is common day practice especially on the island of Ireland for it to be referred as the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is nothing against keeping the article link and adding a pipe, or creating a redirect for Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border that takes it to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. It certainly wouldn't be an easter egg.

Also Bjmullan looking at the Carlingford Lough discussion, the basis of all of your comments is that Northern Ireland isn't a country, which is your prime arguement - not just that Gravyring wants to remove an article link. Mabuska 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Let me note that in studying this, I noted that the wrong infobox was being used and I changed infobox-ocean to infobox-bay. The field in dispute is the same in both infoboxes, and I simply copied over the information from one box to the other without changing it (except to move the coordinates from the text of the article into the infobox, which is the proper place when there is an infobox which allows coords). As for the dispute, it must be noted that except for a couple of changes which were immediately reverted, the location field has consistently remained ] since discussion about this began in November, 2010, and all attempts and requests to change it have been rebuffed, thus indicating that the consensus for the last year and more has been to leave the article as it is. That being the case, the consensus policy says that any change of this text must be supported by consensus and goes on to specifically say that:

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

I see nothing approaching consensus for this change and I am aware of no policy or guideline that would require one outcome or another. Unless, therefore, Gravyring and Mabuska can obtain consensus for this change, it should not be made and the location tag should remain set to ]. If they wish to seek additional editors views, they should consider an RFC (or, perhaps, better, by making a proposal to add a clarification about this at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, but it does not appear likely that they will be able to obtain consensus through persuading the other editors currently involved in this discussion and I am, therefore, closing this listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Terminology is employed which shows a distinct political bias.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CGAppleby (talk · contribs)
• CGAppleby (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=Suicide methods - Starvation}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

Suicide methods - Starvation discussion

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

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

• Maple syrup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Dougweller (talk · contribs)
• Maxim (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)
• Okeyes (WMF) (talk · contribs)
• Philippe (WMF) (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.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

discussion on talk page

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

Maple syrup discussion

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

I understand you but as I've said, for me the issue is more the behaviour of Nikkimaria than anything else, and I wouldn't want to have that get sidetracked. And note that I suggested an RfC and that suggestion was ignored. But I am glad that you agree that there is consensus there. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller and Fae, as I've already pointed out at that talk page, consensus is built by providing rationales for a particular action, and only 1-2 editors advocating for the removal of the category have done so. In fact, some of the reverts have been founded on specious arguments, and some (including Dougweller) have provided no arguments at all. I would also suggest it would be helpful for Dougweller to gain a clearer understanding of the context of the issues he raises (for example, the "birch syrup" issue was resolved amicably), and to review both WP:BRD and WP:OAS. I propose a simple solution to this issue: the subject be dropped until March 7, at which point the category will be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that absolutely nothing goes wrong with deployment or testing :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the WMF have some criteria for when that category should be used? WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not, to me, seem like a valid reason to override an effort from WMF that's intended to benefit the project overall.

But my first thought seeing the article title was that someone was way too much of a John Ringo fan. Ravensfire (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the category only exists for two purposes:

1. To exclude articles currently running WP:AFT5 (so both don't show up together), and;
2. to exclude disambiguation pages (the community said they'd be useless there, so we removed). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Moving my misplaced post and adding that surely this is a content dispute? But it's not about whether the content is appropriate, but whether consensus can be blocked by one editor saying that they don't agree. It's a process issue. If it doesn't go here, and I'd rather not make it more personal, I'm not sure what to do. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Complaints about the "old tool" are applicable because it hasn't yet been replaced by the new tool - that was my point above about March 7, which is the anticipated roll-out date. Dougweller, could you please stop trying to characterize the dispute? You're introducing a lack of clarity, and it would be more helpful for others to look for themselves if they're interested. By the way, I'm female. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a side issue, but: BRD was invoked by one editor as an excuse for multiple reversions. I encourage all editors to take careful note of the third bullet point at WP:BRD-NOT, which says "BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once." If you revert a change more than once, you are not following BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. TrasporterMan, as I've been saying, I think the arguments have been, as Ravensfire says,WP:IDONTLIKEIT on Nikkimaria's part and 'it's ok' and 'your reasons aren't good enough to override this initiative' by others. No reasons for adding it to this specific article seem to have been given, and Nikkimaria hasn't been trying to add it to all articles, just to a handful. So I don't think the normal procedure of examining the quality of arguments is going to work here because it isn't that sort of any issue at least for this article. Which is why I decided to pursue the issue. Normally in disputes the issues are around policy and guidelines, but this, as Nikkimaria has said, is about 'editorial discretion'. Dougweller (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest those who are interested in what arguments were actually made go look at the discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Starting an RfC on article talk would be rather pointless, because RfCs usually run for at least a week, and barring unforeseen complications the category will be removed in a week anyways. However, I would strongly object to any attempts to "dictate" policy - this isn't a legal issue (like BLP, for example), so there's no reason to override editors in that way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Strad, I'm not saying that the count is not likely to presage the likely outcome, nor am I saying that we do not frequently consciously overlook the quality vs. count issue as a practical, everyday approach to evaluating consensus, but I strongly disagree that "not a vote" most strongly applies when policy applies. When policy (or guidelines) apply, consensus plays no part at all unless an IAR local exception to policy is being considered. Policy is, per WP:CONLIMITED the established consensus of the community and the only issue is whether or not policy applies. That there is no policy which controls whether or not the category should be included in this case (and I agree) means that this dispute must be decided on the basis of what is best for the encyclopedia, which is exactly the situation in which the quality vs. quantity element of consensus is most important. A high numerical superiority in count will in due course ordinarily predict the side which also has the better arguments, but it is only a prediction; there are exceptions and we cannot simply assume the prediction is correct. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 04:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

But this isn't an exception. If Nikkimaria didn't like the AfT tool, selectively removing it from a handful of articles as she did is not the way to go about it. When she added the blacklist cat, she didn't argue that the tool was a problem for these specific articles, and when on 3 at least it was removed she insisted it be restored. I find it hard to believe that it is best for the encyclopedia that these articles be selectively left out of the trials, and I don't see her making that argument in any case. She made it clear in her first post that it was an editorial decision. I don't see anyway of objectively deciding if her reasons for excluding the articles from the trial are better than any possible arguments for leaving them in, or indeed vice versa, and the numerical count is clearly against her. Despite that she has insisted on restoring the blacklist and she was the only editor insisting on that. The proper thing to do would have been, IMHO, to bow to the others but continue to try to get consensus to restore the blacklist cat. Even now she is insisting it remain until the 7th. That's soon of course and in isolation makes no difference, but it's a bad message to send that one person can maintain a category or tag against the opposition of several other editors when as you agree there is no policy (or I think guideline) issue to be resolved. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"she didn't argue that the tool was a problem for these specific articles" - yes, I did. Though I think AFT as it stands needs significant improvement (which will hopefully be accomplished by v5), I didn't go around removing it from every article I've ever edited, just a very specific subset. In fact, I pointed this out in the discussion at Talk:Maple syrup. I would really recommend you read that discussion in full before continuing to mischaracterize my arguments and actions. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed you did point out that you weren't removing it from every article, but the reasons you give for blacklisting seem general, not specific to anything about this article - I've read your comments several times before and just before posting this, and I still can't see anything that wouldn't apply generally. I apologise if I've missed something, but I don't think I have, and with 7y editors arguing against you isn't it time to retire gracefully? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

As I've already stated, I have every intention of removing the category in a few days. Surely you can be patient until that time? After all, there is no deadline. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And on the talk page, I just notice that as of several hours ago there are two more editors calling for the tool to be allowed: After commentary such as " Objective? Removing Rating=No. Utterly subjective, "I can, so I did" a user concluded "Oh, and I think the other editors deserve to see how their work stacks up by user ratings. The onus would be on anyone to explain why the other editors should be denied that.Now, everyone go fry some bacon... --cregil (talk) 4:54 am, Today (UTC+0)" immediately followed by "Seconded. An RFC? Just stick the widget back in and lets do something more useful. Meters (talk) 5:21 am, Today (UTC+0)" That's 7 editors calling for the tool to be allowed, and just one insisting on keeping the blacklist category. TransporterMan, is that enough? Is Nikkimaria justified in continuing to replace it still? Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not mean this as a personal criticism, Dougweller, but only as a comment upon your argument. The problem is that it's skipping a step in the process. You may — or may not — be absolutely right that Nikkimaria's argument is devoid of merit and that she is engaging in open and obvious ownership of a entire range of articles and, indeed, conspiring with Dr. Evil to take over all of Misplaced Pages, but at this point in the process the community must assume good faith that her claim that she has the better argument has merit and engage in the prescribed process to evaluate that claim. (I have not, and at this point in time still do not, express any opinion about that claim other than the fact that it is, under Wiki-principles of collegiality and cooperation, worthy of being properly evaluated.) Once that process begins, then your arguments will be apropos and should be given the same serious consideration as hers, along with everyone else's who have weighed in on this matter. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read the discussions-- here and on the MS article. I remain unable to find any reason for removing the tool. That the data is not trustworthy enough for that editor, and that others have complained-- is no reason take the tool away from use of others who do find some use in it.

That dissenting editor is not required to use it-- but to remove it from being used by those who may is not reasonable. It is a tool made available to contributors, editors and readers. Give them the tool, or explain why one can prevent others from using. The burden lies there-- not with those who complained that their tool had been removed.

If the dissenting editor has met that burden, then I would need to see another summarize the relevant argument, because what I see as "reasons" are so vague as to be unable to articulate them.

--cregil (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

And yet, the words remain. Despite the order of appearance, and my personality which seeks dialogue before it seeks effect, "What has been written... has been written."--cregil (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And despite Nikkimaria being in a minority of 1 with 7 editors opposing here, we are still being told there must be someone uninvolved stating that there is a consensus. I don't understand this. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Which I've already done, at length, on the talk page before and during this discussion. For the benefit of those who may have been misled by the misstatements above:

Now, given that the question that began this noticeboard post has already been answered, and that barring unforeseen complications the category will be gone by this time next week, is there anything else that needs to be done here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Turks in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ceco31 (talk · contribs)
• Hittit (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.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

Turks in Bulgaria discussion

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

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

• Iron Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dahn (talk · contribs)
• Anonimu (talk · contribs)

I do not want to be involved in such dispute.

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

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

• How do you think we can help?

It depends if you want or not a censored encyclopedia.

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

Iron Guard discussion

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

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

• Kids in Glass Houses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Users involved

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

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

Kids in Glass Houses discussion

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

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

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

• Jeffrey Epstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Rklawton (talk · contribs)
• Nomoskedacisity (talk · contribs)
• Fluffernutter (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=Jeffrey Epstein}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

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

• How do you think we can help?

Please advise

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

Jeffrey Epstein discussion

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

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

• The Mole (MC/producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

This page was deleted due to the artist being "too obscure for Misplaced Pages". After a message was sent to the administrator TParis (who happens to be on Administrator Review), I received a response requesting that I send references proving the validity of the artist's worth. I sent a very large list of references, and have received no reply.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Jonah Mociun (talk · contribs)
• TParis (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=The Mole (MC/producer)}} --~~~~ 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?

As mentioned prior, TParis requested references, which I gave, yet the page remains deleted. It is extremely disheartening, as an independent artist, to see my long track record disappear from the internet, not only on Misplaced Pages but in a very large number of web sites dating back to 1999. The fact that this page, which I did not create by the way, was deleted due to obscurity, is yet another kick in the face to someone who has purposefully remained independent, turning down deals, for moral reasons, from Sony, Virgin, and others. I feel like Misplaced Pages is supposed to represent the free press, which is rapidly dwindling. And to delete a page due to an artist's "obscurity" seems not only unnecessary but counter to what is purported to be a system of interoperability. I have changed my stage names numerous times over the years and represented a variety of relatively short-lived collectives, thereby making my name difficult to track, but I believe that an honest search for terms such as "The Mole", "Th' Mole" "DJ 0.000001", "Magical Bass" and "Motion Recordings" should give some idea of the validity and influence of my work. I have worked prominently with many non-commercial labels and organizations including Magical Bass, Motion Recordings, The Motherboard, New Cocoon, Hectic Records, Daly City Records, Fresh yO!, Anti-Party Records, Chickenhed, Vaatican Records, SPAZ, Iceberg, Circuitry Audio, Diseased Records, Paramanu Records, Milled Pavement Records, Ramadon Recordings, and others. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

• How do you think we can help?

Please re-instate said Wiki page, considering above-mentioned points.

69.230.109.25 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mole (MC/producer) discussion

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

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

• Carlingford Lough - The border (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

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

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

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Gravyring (talk · contribs)
• Gravyring (talk · contribs)

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

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

Not yet.

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

Resolving the dispute

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

Topic discussion with no reasoning to objection.

• How do you think we can help?

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

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

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

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

Carlingford Lough - The border discussion

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

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

• Richard F. Cebull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Cebull is in the news for forwarding an email about Obama. I tried to add a clause about the content of the email. Users on the talk page have offered a series of changing arguments as to why the content should not be added to the article. These arguments include: I have misunderstood the joke; there is no agreement about what the joke means; "there are BLP issues involved here"; the article doesn't contain enough detail about other aspects of the bio; and "that's three voices compared to one".

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Goethean (talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs)
• Bernardoni (talk · contribs)
• Jokestress (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=Richard F. Cebull}} --~~~~ 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?

Please review the suggested addition and advise whether it is an appropriate addition to the article.

— goethean ॐ 01:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard F. Cebull discussion

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