Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arilang1234 (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 3 July 2011 (→User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
    Shortcuts

    This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

    Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
    Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

    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 help:

    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 Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

    Volunteers should remember:
    • 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 Wikipedia, 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.
    Open/close quick reference
    • 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).
    Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
    Title Status User Time User Time User Time
    Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov Closed Trumpetrep (t) 15 days, Robert McClenon (t) 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 14 hours
    Breyers New Zefr (t) 8 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 9 hours Zefr (t) 8 hours
    Dragon Age: The Veilguard New Sariel Xilo (t) 6 days, 19 hours None n/a Wikibenboy94 (t) 5 days, 20 hours
    AIM-174B Closed MWFwiki (t) 5 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 days, 13 hours
    List of tallest buildings in Johor Bahru New HundenvonPenang (t) 2 days, 6 hours None n/a HundenvonPenang (t) 2 days, 6 hours
    Ustad Ahmad_Lahori New Goshua55 (t) 1 days, 1 hours None n/a Benison (t) 8 hours
    Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects Closed Rusted AutoParts (t) 12 hours Robert McClenon (t) 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 9 hours

    If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
    Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 07:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    Example case

    Spore (2008 video game) (Example case)

    (Example post)

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
    • I have tried talking about the issue with Example on the article talk page, but I need some extra input on what I can do here to move forward with resolving this dispute, as there are numerous sources supporting the different genres.
    • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
    • Direct me to ways to resolve this dispute, or where I can get assistance in resolving the dispute. We need to come up with a compromise as how to move forward with the article. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....

    Discussion

    Resolution

    The dispute at hand seems to be to me that there are multiple possible genres to the article, and many sources backing up the different genres, however the issue of which genre best fits is still an issue. A mediation cabal case might be useful here, the assistance of a third party editor could assist in working out a compromise that works well. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....


    Zakat: removal of tags (moved to subpage)

    Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Zakat. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....

    Airconditioning Dispute

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • An editor named RGCorris is insistent on adding what I believe to be false information to the article Airconditioning, and has been increasingly hostile about the issue. The Status Quo version of the article stated that the song "What Happens When You Blow Yourself Up" appeared as the b-side to the single "It Happened Today". RGCorris deleted this information and replaced it with the statement that it was the second track on the a-side. His edit summary read only "correct data re single", so I reverted the edit with a note saying that the version with "What Happens" on the b-side is at least the more common version. He reverted the edit back and left a note on Talk: Airconditioning warning editors not to revert the claim without providing a referenced source. Neither his edit summary nor his note gave any reason why he believed the preexisting information in the article to be false, not even an "I heard it somewhere", but I decided the best way to avoid a fight would be to simply humor him and add the requested reference. However, this only made him more hostile. He immediately reverted the article back to his version and posted a rant in which he accused me of lying about the relevant single and of getting the information I referenced second hand. He has since allowed the statement "'What Happens' was a b-side" to remain, but has added the claim that it was also an a-side, listing as a source a website which actually lists both versions of the single with "What Happens" as a b-side. When I pointed out to him that the source he cited says the opposite of his claim, he quoted back a listing with "What Happens" as a b-side and claimed that this proves that it was an a-side. At this point, I don't think there's any hope of my reasoning skills getting through to him(and incidentally, I would appreciate any constructive criticism on said reasoning skills, so as to avoid my having to resort to this noticeboard in the future). The issue of "What Happens" as an a-side is trivial, and I have little problem with allowing that claim to remain in the article, but RGCorris's behavior in the dispute upsets me. I don't want to have to continue with my work on the Curved Air-related articles with the constant threat of him picking a fight with me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
    • What can we do to help resolve this issue?

    Discussion

    Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. Editor Martin Illa was asked to provide proper references for his claim that a particular song was a b-side. Although I was able to quote the record company's catalogue reference number for the vinyl issue with it as a second track on the A-side, and offered to send him a scan of the record label, he insisted on reverting the edit, quoting a CD booklet as his source. I have since established that the track in question was a b-side in North America and the second track on the a-side in the UK, and added that information with the catalogue reference numbers for both versions. Mr Illa's aggressive responses, where he claimed that he was not my secretary and showed no interest in establishing the verifiable truth of the matter are regrettable. However IMHO the matter has now been clarified and the dispute has been resolved, with the article containing correct and verifiable data.

    Mr. Illa has also made edits on various Curved Air album pages with sections left completely blank under the sub-heading, and seems to have taken umbrage when I pointed this out, claiming that he had not yet finished his editing on them. RGCorris (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it.
    No one should have to tell you this, but a catalogue number is not a reference, not even an unreliable one. Especially not when the available sources match that catalogue number with a record other than the one you claim exists.
    I did not take umbrage on the points you mention. Indeed, as anyone reading my talk page can see, my reply to your post could not have been more laid back and friendly. Moreover, the edits you refer to are part of a project started by WP: WikiProject Albums, and I provided a clear link to this project in my edit summaries. As for being your secretary, you had just made the bizarre request that I find you a reference for a piece of information that is not anywhere in the article in question, and moreover, you did so immediately after deleting the reference you previously requested with no explanation. Against such a bizarre request, a blunt "I am not here to be your personal secretary" seemed the best way of putting an end to that side issue.
    The above should make it clearer why RGCorris is making me nervous. Absolutely anything that I say to him, even "Don't worry, I'll take care of it" and "Here's the reference you asked for", is interpreted by him as an attack.
    It doesn't help that he seems to have no ability to differentiate between reliable and unreliable sources. Let him correct me if I'm wrong, but his way of establishing that "What Happens" was a b-side in North America was by asking about the matter on the Curved Air fan mailing list. After rejecting the word of official album liner notes, he took a lone fan on a mailing list as an acceptable reference. For all he knows, the one who provided him that information was me.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote : "First of all, it was not "his claim"; the article stated that the song is a b-side before either of us performed any edits on it." It must have been some other Martin Illa that added that information at 13:07 on 7th May 2011 then ? This dispute is unnecessary and I am at a loss why Mr Illa wants to pursue it. I bought the record in question in 1971 and still have it (along with a second copy as the original got scratched) and have quoted the details from the label; copies come up for sale regularly and I have referred Mr. Illa to one such, although he declined to look at it; the details of the release can be verified from the record company's catalogue data if necessary. I believe the article now contains correct and verifiable information. Why he wishes to pursue the argument I know not. RGCorris (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anyone going to help out here? The reason I brought this issue here was because, as RGCorris's above posts demonstrate, I can't get RGCorris to regard me as anything but his eternal archenemy no matter how accomodating I am to him. More back-and-forth between the two of us on this forum is only going to make things worse.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    List of oldest universities in continuous operation

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • There have been multiple discussions on the talk page about whether or not to include Madrasah's in the article. Common but reliable sources like UNESCO state that they are Universities, whereas academic sources do not. Once I understood this fully I was prepared to not include the Madrasah's in the article, but due to the confusion of the different sources and editors (along with myself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) I felt that a disambiguation link at the top and an explanation in the lead was necessary to clarify the matter to our readers. User:Gun Powder Ma and User:Athenean object to this being included in the lead.
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
    • Extensive discussions on talk, and on the users talk pages (1, 2).
    • What can we do to help resolve this issue?
    • Come up with an acceptable compromise to clarify why Madrasah's aren't included in the article without over-burdening it.

    Discussion

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

    • One of the other issues as far as I'm concerned is the great reluctance of the other participants to discuss the matter, or to suggest possible compromise proposals. Its pretty difficult to solve the dispute when you are the only person suggesting any sensible ways forward. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are other religious schools included? If so, it's a simple matter of a topic sentence to say that 'Some of the oldest universities are religious institutions including... and X, Y, and Z'. A disambiguation would be overkill, just use a clearly phrased introductory sentence in the introduction's second or third paragraph. Ocaasi t | c 20:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article states that Universities emerged from cathedral/monastic schools in Europe, and it states they were "intrinsically linked to Christian faith".
      • The other difference with Madrasah's is that a number of decent sources including UNESCO and the Oxford Dictionary of Islam do call them Universities - thus confusing the issue as to what the definition is - especially for non-academics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a definitional issue here as well as a cultural one. You should be careful about applying academic standards in this area since they are culturally and geographically dependent. It's strong Euro-centrism and Christian-centrism to define university as an educational institution which has its roots in or follows the model of that culture and style. The familiar type university is a model with certain characteristics; in the modern world it has been further codified with standards and certifications. Madrasahs may follow a different model but we should be very careful to exclude them from the broader category of educational institution because of that.
        • The first issue you have to decide is whether this article is narrowly and clearly defined as universities in that Eurocentric model. If not, if you are already including other cultural-educational institutions, then Madrasahs would obviously included, since for Islamic cultures they the analogous institutions. If you are defining university narrowly, then you still have the question of whether Madrasahs meet the criteria. There are sub-question of composition and program: a) do Madrasahs do non-religious education as well? If so, that reasons for their inclusion. Do Madrasahs have clear or rigorous curriculum and graduation standards. That would also support inclusion. Do Madrasahs have a history of educating the society's most intelligent and important individuals. Further support. You would need good sources to answer those questions.
        • I think a 'way-out' of the conflicting sources bind is to distinguish primarily academic from primarily religious institutions within the article. Perhaps create a separate section for religious universities, or--if that is a redundant notion historically--you might create a separate section just for Madrasahs. You should also be mindful of distinguishing religious schools, from schools that were also religious, from purely secular schools--and applying the same rubric across the board.
        • In general, you want to have a list of the oldest Madrasahs somewhere on Wikipedia. And, you want to maintain a meaningful category for what a university is at the same time. The practical solution is to clearly lay out which definition or model you are using, briefly explain its trends and its background, and point readers to where they can find related information if it's not all in one place. I don't know if there's a right answer here, but it makes sense to me to group this information together, organizing it helpfully, and take some extra introductory text to give the available and necessary information about the subject. My hunch is that inclusion of Madrasahs will make sense, but perhaps qualified. If the only point of excluding them is to maintain the purity of a Eurocentric definition, and there are some sources which clearly include them, an easy solution is to include them while mentioning that they fall outside of the standard definition in the eyes of some sources. Ocaasi t | c 12:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing this up. Let me first say that I don't agree that other participants haven't been willing enough to compromise, something which I consider important as long as the quality of the article is not impaired. Eraserhead's latest substantial edit was kept in its entirety, only re-arranged, something which other users have also noticed.
    It is also true that I have invested a great deal of time and effort into explaining Eraserhead the fundamental difference between Madrasas and Universities in terms of their history and characteristics. I am glad that he has come around to largely acknowledge these differences, although I have to say it is normally not the job of other editors to explain fundamentals of the article which can be easily gleaned from Google books or other easily available sources.
    I happen to think that the remaining dissent between Eraserhead and several other editor, inlcuding me, are in fact quite small. All what Eraserhead now seems to argue for is to move the link to the Islamic madrasas from "see also", where it has been for over a year, right to the very top. There are several reasons why I don't think this complies to WP guidelines and standard practice:
    1. a list usually does not define the topic, at least not overly. For this, there are the main articles medieval university and university. Particularly, a list does not define what the topic is all not, what is Eraserheas wants with his discussion of unrelated centers of higher education like the mosque school
    2. Top links are mostly reserved only for Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but here nothing needs to disambiguated as Christian university and Islamic madrasa are semantically and historically totally different
    3. If there were a need for a disambiguating top link the first choice would be naturally to related Christian educational institution like the cathedral school and monastic school, both direct forerunners of the university, but there is no need either.
    In sum, arguing, like Eraserhead does, that university should overly refer to madrasa just because both were/are educational institutions of higher learning is as absurd as arguing that church (building) should be referring to mosque (or vice versa) because both share being places of worship. The article needs urgent attention in other matters, like the problematic definition of "continuous", but this constant side-issue of trying to put the madrasa in the limelight in a completely unrelated topic, which has been dragging on for months now, makes this unfortunately impossible. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be so sure that Wikipedians shouldn't explain their knowledge whether it's available in sources or not.
    • University is a cultural and historical term, but it is also a common term. The broad definition of "community of teachers and scholars" may well include Madrasahs in spirit and in current usage, even if it did not historically.
    • If you want to stick to the European/Christian university model, then you should make that clear in the introduction if not the title. You should indeed offer disambiguation as a courtesy to the reader who may be looking for related information. This may be in a hatnote, or an introductory note, or the See Also section. It is not obvious what terms are used for inclusion in a list, and defining terms and identifying criteria, as well as locating a category among related categories, fields, and ideas is indeed appropriate for the introduction to a List Of articles. We want our readers to be informed explicitly, so long as length is conserved and links to information are used where explication would be excessive. Ocaasi t | c 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Ocaasi, in the most general sense "community of teachers and scholars" may well include every type of school and centre of higher learning, yet nobody has ever argued to include them all in the list. In a more narrow sense, the madrasa ceased to be such a community, since there was never the legal framework between these two bodies which ruled their interaction in the university.
    2. This has already been done a year ago. Since then the List of oldest madrasahs in continuous operation is in the See also section. But Eraserhead now wants a disambiguation (like the railway station of the same name got in Roman bridge) for which, however, I haven't found yet any solid basis in the WP guidelines.
    3. WP:Lead defines that the lead has to summarize the article which is exclusively about the university. Apart from that, I think it is most obvious to the reader what a list of universities refers to, namely to the university and this is linked directly on top. As long as university does not offer a lengthy discussion on why it is not a mosque school or a Greek philosophical centre or a Chinese Confucian school, there seems to be little reason to do so in an ancillary list. Lists don't at all discuss these things to such a depth.
    I would think a one paragraph contextualization would be useful. Universities are X. They are different from philosophical centers, Confucian schools, Madrassahs, Yeshivas, etc. It could be brief and hyperlinked. We want to give readers access and understanding. In this area, where university represents the common name of a center of learning, we would help readers by showing them the sketch of centers of learning which are not included at the University article. I've seen several lists which do this in the introduction typically with less than 3 paragraphs. A short disambiguation hatnote would also work. This approach would blend naturally with a definition of the University as you have described it. You could also, even mention that there are cultural or etymological debates and though some sources include non-western Universities, this list does not. That's not a very big concession to make here assuming Madrasahs are kept out of the list. Although the lead summarizes the body it also provides context, basic etymology, and disambiguation.
    • WP:LEAD: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." ..."Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar." ..."It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time.")
    • WP:DISAMBIG: "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be."..."Users searching for what turns out to be an ambiguous term may not reach the article they expected. Therefore any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article using one of the templates shown below."
    • WP:HATNOTE: "Hatnotes are short notes placed at the top of an article (hence the name "hat"), normally to help readers locate a different article they might be looking for when they arrived at the article in which the hatnote is placed (this may happen because of redirects, because the article they are looking for uses a more specific, disambiguated title, or because its name is otherwise similar to that of the article with a hatnote). They accomplish this by providing links to the article in question or to a disambiguation page." ..."[Legitimate] information belongs in the body of the article, or in the articles about [the book], or in a separate article about names, or all three places. Hatnotes are meant to reduce confusion and direct readers to another article they might have been looking for, not for information about the subject of the article itself." Ocaasi t | c 01:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ GunPowderMa, I don't think my last edit was kept in its entirety and the other user who argees with you has also been named as a party here so they aren't a neutral person. Besides if you really believe my last substantial edit was kept in its entirety why didn't you let me just revert it to the previous state? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been kept in its entirety as anyone can see for himself in the edit history. Those parts which define the university negatively (= not an ancient centre comparable to those of Greece, China etc.) have only been moved to the definition section where they belong and which is still very close to the top to be swiftly digested by the reader. It is this buoyancy of material related to the madrasa to the very top of the list which makes me, to be frank, somewhat suspicious of your motives. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My objection is that its now in a different - otherwise totally unrelated - section. If you want to move all the content on the definition into the lead - or move it into a section in its own right I have no problem with it being after the other information. I suggested both of those on the talk page before coming here, and you didn't like either of those suggestions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't see how someone could confuse Madrasah with University. Different word, different meaning, different connotation. Give our readers some credit. Perhaps creating a separate article List of oldest Madrasahs in continuous operation might do the trick? Athenean (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    People clearly have got confused between Madrasah's of higher learning and Universities - including several reliable sources. Refusing to accept that after it has been pointed out many times is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I'm perfectly content for there to be a different article on Madrasah's but I think it needs linking to prominently. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What Ocaasi points out seems sensible and reasonable. I see no reason not to go along with what he says - I presume you guys are OK with that as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz and CSD tagging

    User in question has gone idle

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • There is a dispute over User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's use of CSD tags. See [6], [7], and [8]. Also, see Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page and talk page history. Basically, I believe Maher-shalal-hashbaz over-tags for speedy deletion, especially when patrolling new pages, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz believes he can tag based on a "gut feeling", and that if others want to rescue the article, they can.
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • We have discussed this on Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page. Rather than respond to my concerns about the effect of what he is doing on new editors, Maher-shalal-hashbaz indicated he will continue doing what he has been doing.
    • How do you think we can help?
    • Some general input about whether this type of CSD tagging and new page patrolling is appropriate. This is clearly a dispute between myself and Maher-shalal-hashbaz over the appropriate use of CSD tags, so some outside input will be helpful. Singularity42 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

    • Comment from involved editor (and initiator of this thread). I believe when new page patrolling, there's a lot that can be easily tagged for speedy deletion: "Bob is the best guy in the world", "The band has self-published its first album, and will soon be known by the entire world", "The company will help you solve your IT problems", etc. But some authors write articles that clearly need a little bit more review before tagging. These are usually lengthier articles, or articles where the claim of importance cannot be dismissed out of hand. Usually a quick Google check will so;ve it one way or another. By tagging these articles for deletion based on a gut feeling, it can bite the newbies, especially ones who have actually put together a semi-decent article but are now told it will soon be deleted for not complying with our policies. I would like Maher-shalal-hashbaz to err on the side of not nominating rather than err on the side of nominating (as he put it), and realize that there are enough editors doing new page patrol that there is no need to rush into a decision of whether to tag an article for deletion. Singularity42 (talk) 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • NPPer Observation. As a fellow NPPer, I'm looking at their work and discovereing that their quality of tagging with the various toolset is significantly out of line with community consensus. I reccomend that Maher consider reading WP:BEFORE,WP:NPP, and their associated talk pages. The prefered method if you're going to be NPPing, is to first fix any problems you can immediateley, then do a maintanance template tagging, then if the article is still helpless use the PROD mechanisims. CSDs are only supposed to be used for very narrow and very specific definitions. David Dyment was an article that Maher tagged for CSD:A7, when clearly the subject has established enough of a presence to qualify under the GNG and as such I declined the A7. Should this activity continue, I would reccomend that the user be progressiveley be sanctioned for improper use of tools and editing against community consensus Hasteur (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment New page patrol is one of the most thankless, necessary, contentious, and potentially harmful aspects of the site. It has to be done, yet it is constructed in such a way that it bothers, confuses, and alienates new editors. Patrollers should make a reasonable effort to minimize the negative effect that NPP has. One of the clear ways to do that is to ask a few basic questions when they review a page. 1) Does it have a reasonable chance of being improved? 2) Was a minimal effort made to follow notability, sourcing, and formatting standards? 3) Would tagging it for CSD unnecessarily turn off a potential good editor. Relying on a "gut feeling" without asking those questions is a bad idea and NPP patrollers should find a way to internalize those into an efficient system. Where there are borderline cases, NPP patrollers should not assume that 'someone will save the article if they care enough' as often the process of contesting a CSD is unfamiliar and new editors are not prepared to do so. There is an easy alternative which is marking articles with PRODs instead. This should be used in all borderline cases. There is nothing lost by letting an article sit for 7 days, and if it's not an unambiguous CSD candidate that is what policy directs. Save CSD for the worst cases and use PROD for the rest. Since this dispute involves one editor's behavior, an RfC/U might be useful later. I don't suspsect the community would support a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach here, as much as they sympathize with the demands and crap-ful-ness of NPP.Ocaasi t | c 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I had considered an RfC/U, but besides there needs to be two editors who have tried to resolve it first as a minimum requirement (which is not the case here), I agree that NPP is a thankless job, and I don't want to penalize Maher-shalal-hashbaz for spending his time doing it. I'm still trying to figure out what this noticeboard is for, but based on the description it seemed to me a useful way to gain additional input and come up with a resolution that might show Maher-shalal-hashbaz that his use of CSDs needs to change (or, alternatively, that Maher-shalal-hashbaz is right and I am incorrect). Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    User has gone idle, and has not done anything since this DRN was opened. If it becomes a problem again, please feel free to file a RfC/U and to encourage them to slow down on their tagging. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Abortion

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      There has been quite a bit of discussion on the lead sentence. Put simply, one group of editors wants the first sentence of the article to read Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, caused by or resulting in its death. This is the way the article has read for quite some years now. Other editors, myself included, would prefer that it be written as Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus before it is viable.

      Although it seems like a rather silly dispute, it has been going on for quite some time. Allow me to summarize the two parties. Party 2 believes the word viable should be used because it most accurately describes the medical and otherwise-real world consensus on the plainly stated definition of abortion. To this effect, I have gathered a very comprehensive list of sources. Every source that I looked up is listed there, bar perhaps one or two exceptions (same publishing company as another source, a derivative source, etc.). Out of the 23 sources listed, 1 uses the word death. The rest, including every major OB/GYN textbook, every major medical dictionary (as determined by an uninvolved editor, a physician who does a lot of work WikiProject Medicine's scope), and encyclopedias like Encyclopædia Britannica, do not, and the vast majority of those state non-viability as a clear criteria for abortion. This position has the majority's backing right now, but does not have the level of support I would like for a stable article.

      Party 1 believes that using the word death is preferred. They state that viable has a number of problems, including: the fact that aborting viable fetuses do occur (partial-birth abortions, late termination of pregnancy), defining viability is problematic and the limit of viability does not have medical consensus, the fact that a reader might infer embryos will not become viable, and the fact that writing it this way would "redefine abortion". They also objected to "termination", on the grounds that it was an unnecessarily technical term (seen has euphemistic by pro-life), confusing, that it frames abortion as a medical procedure and that encyclopedias have a wider scope, that it refers to pregnancy ending, does not clarify what happens to its contents, and because selective abortionsdo not end the entire pregnancy. (this past sentence adapted from a post by RoyBoy; I believe it adequately represents Party 1's position). Some editors have also noted that because "death" is a term used by some scientists to refer to the termination of a POC, it is an acceptable term to use here. Other editors believe that as "death" is not a term contradicted by any of the sources provided, it can and should be used here.

      I believe that's a decent enough representation of both sides? Trout me if it isn't, and tell me how I can fix it; I would be happy to. Any uninvolved commentator here would probably be best served by reading the entire talk page at minimum before commenting anyway. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • Yes, there has been many a talk page section on this matter. One of the parties has also opened a request on AN, but that is likely the wrong venue and has not gathered any significant input. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you think we can help?
    • I have no idea. We have clearly reached an impasse, and with the article protected until next Monday, I figure it might be best to try to get outside input. NW (Talk) 13:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I agree with the use of viability in the lead. The issue of death and its context can be dealt with lower in the article where all sides of the issue can be addressed. The question is has "human death" occurred. Similar to the issue of organ transplants with some countries/cultures recognizing brain death and some not. Some do not consider "human life" to have occurred and thus "human death" has not occurred with abortion. Without context stating "death" in the definition is not WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This issue definitely falls out of the scope of this board, it's too big. The question here is, whether it could be absorbed into the current MedCab case, with the case renamed, or whether a case should be filed with the Mediation Committee. It'd seem odd to me to have two different mediations on the same topic running concurrently. If absorbing the issue into the current MedCab is the way to go, let me know, but keep discussions here now only focused on what to do with the dispute now. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's related but I think distinctly separate from the issues at the current mediation. I would prefer to keep the two issues separate if possible. Would you have any other suggestions on where to go? I'm reluctant to try formal Mediation, as I forsee only a huge time sink because of two or three of the editors (I hasten to add though, that I do believe that most of the editors are acting in good faith, and a mediation with them alone has the potential for success.) NW (Talk) 02:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do acknowledge that they are related issues however separate issues. I suggested absorbing the issues into one case to make it easier for me to keep track of, as well as to prevent disjointed discussions. In theory, a second MedCab case could be filed, but it might be better to discuss one issue, resolve it, then move on to other issues later. I suggested formal mediation as it would provide the privilege that comes with formal mediation, hopefully creating an environment where discussion is freer and more focused on actually resolving the issues at hand. I don't debate that this would take quite some time to resolve, contentious disputes do, and while conduct plays a part here, namely using Wikipedia somewhat as a battleground to further off-wiki disputes (promoting personal opinions of abortion), the larger issue here is content, and I feel that mediation may be the only way forward here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Steven that this larger issue might be bigger than this board can handle. But have you tried just describing the dispute among reliable sources. "Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The criteria of an abortion vary, with one common definition requiring the aborted pregnancy to have been viable; another definition uses the death of the fetus as a marker. The first definition is contested because many abortions happen before as well as after viability, or when it is unknown. The second definition is controversial since there is debate about whether or not a fetus represents a separate life that can be killed." So, just start with a stub definition and then branch off, expanding on it in an Etymology and/or Definition section. Don't take sides, describe the dispute. Ocaasi t | c 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think something simple in the lead like, "artificial termination of a pregnancy" followed by a major section ==Definition of abortion== outlining all the issues you raise would be the best solution. I wouldn't worry that the short lead introduction does not comprehensively address all issues. I think it is a good general rule to not attempt to resolve issues in the lead, as then there must be winners and losers, and, of course, the biggest loser is the reader who needs to be informed about the issues not told the "correct" answer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Artificial termination of pregnancy would perhaps run for induced abortion, but the recurrent misunderstanding seems to be that the article is specific to induced abortion whenever it is a generic article covering both spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) and induced (artificial) abortion. The dispute is a non-dispute because pro-life advocacy is impossible as the first sentence that the dispute is over was defining abortion broadly and comprehensively from several reliable sources and is the fruit of a well established and tested consensus. DMSBel (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There can be no such consensus. Taking a point of view in the lead paragraph is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this is the heart of the problem. The old guard says things like "The dispute is a non-dispute because[...]the first sentence that the dispute is over[...]is the fruit of a well established and tested consensus" and then does not engage new sources and new editors and their concerns. That's why we're here. JJL (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone totally uninvolved in these issues, the problem to me is that the debate is being framed as an "all or nothing" binary choice of two possibilities, hinging on the use of the "viable" vs. "death" phrasing, i.e. the sentence must include exactly one of these two versions. Has anyone explored or broached the possibility of rewriting the sentence entirely, so as to a) avoid using either term or b) use both terms. I have no idea what that sentence should be in the end, and I have no opinion one way or the other on the subject of the article, either within Wikipedia or in the real world. I am just trying to see if some third way, a compromise or alternative way forward, couldn't break the deadlock here? --Jayron32 04:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Yes I offered a suggestion of a wording with both terms a few days ago. It would of course need further discussion to find a consensus, but as there is no consensus seemingly, (although that view is held only by editors seeking to advance a new consensus), we would be discussing things anyway. JJL seems not to like the option of both terms. There has been little said by other editors either for or against that as yet. Removing both terms leaves the definition rather vague. And I still am waiting for a coherent explanation of how the term death could introduce a POV to a generic definition of abortion.
    Also, could we stop caricaturing editors as "old guard" it says more about the one saying it than the editors working on the article. I have been with the article only slightly longer than JJL, but several other editors know the debate much better, and have been involved in working to the compromise that is the consensus version of the lede before JJL took issue with it.
    The trouble with the current version is that is based on a straw-poll which had a narrative change in the middle of it if I recall correctly, and no one thought it was going to be used as the basis of consensus.DMSBel (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    Page on Media Lens

    Per comments below, this issue seems to be resolved now.

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • I request that someone who is better versed in Wikipaedia rules look at the discussion page and the exchanges by me and Philip Cross. I fear that both of us have conflicts of interest which prevent consensus. Hitherto I have mostly looked at historical pages where differences over content are less vulnerable to politically loaded editing.
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Keith-264 and Philip Cross.
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • I suggested arbitration which PC agreed to.
    • How do you think we can help?

    Discussion

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

    • I've read the article and the discussion pages. In general, the article is written a bit too much from an insider perspective, sounding like ML is explaining itself rather than Wikipedia giving a neutral overview. The thinly veiled pro ML slant reflect that people who like the subject wrote the bulk of the article. The criticism section is an improvement on that, but it still has a tone of support and case-making in the main section. The talkpage discussion slightly confuses notable figures and RS. Someone whose opinions are notable for political commentary, such as Monbiot, may be relevant for inclusion even if they are not a reliable source for hard news. RS is always applied in context and is not a blanket determination of someone's accuracy. We can always quote and attribute relevant, notable figures' opinions whether they are right nor not (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Are there any specific issues you are getting hung up on? Ocaasi t | c 19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know enough about Wiki policies, I like much of what The Daves write at ML and so have a conflict of interest and I don't trust PC's comments as I think that he has a reciprocal axe to grind. I don't want to abandon the page and I don't want to get into a mud-slinging competition.Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Start by reading WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. The best way to get to know our policies (there are only 55 of them!) is to read the ones that are relevant to your discussion. Also, read WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS, since it's the base of our editor interactions. The talk page looked unremarkable and a bit foggy but not like you were getting stuck. The article shows some signs of imperfect construction, but I don't see a major dispute or any fundamental policy misinterpretations. Just because you like what The Daves writes, doesn't mean you have a true conflict of interest. That's more for someone whose personal life, ideology, or fortune is at risk based on the outcome of an article. You just may have a bias, but that's fine. Editors can have a bias as long as the writing comes out straight. Working with editors who have opposing ideologies is one way to make that happen. Stay civil, use the talk page for contentious changes, continue to rephrase and structure opinions so that they are described from a neutral point of view. Come back if you run into a specific issue or would like a third opinion on anything. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    Issue now seems to be resolved. Closing. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Removal of comments on George RR Martin's wiki page

    Discussion is proceeding on Talk:George R. R. Martin

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • I added several edits to the George RR Martin wiki page which were all removed by the editor Amalthea. The comments from Amalthea were as follows: "(rv: Have a grudge, do we? Fan forum link is not relevant enough (especially in comparison), your other points aren't sourced (although I read the "shit out of luck" comment somewhere)/not relevant. Whole thing needs reorganizing, TTTT.) (undo)"

    As I pointed out in my response to Amalthea on his talk page, I do not consider it to be a grudge to point out that it is Martin's policy to censor fan comments that may be considered critical. Readers should know this prior to trying to post at one of his sites. I sourced this with a reference to a recent New Yorker article which can be viewed online at [9]. I also added a comment about the "Is Winter Coming?" website which has become the alternative for many fans who have pro/con views regarding Martin and his books. I added this site [10] to the external link section as a balance to other sites in the section which do practice censorship.

    Lastly, I added a comment that Martin has said that he will not allow any other writer to complete the series in the event that he dies before it is completed. In the past, this was an ongoing question among fans. Now, it has recently been confirmed by Martin himself in the New Yorker article. I think that people (especially those who have been introduced to the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series by the HBO show) should know this before they decide whether or not to invest their time and money in reading these books. DavidG3276 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • Originally, I said that Amalthea had not responded but as Hasteur points out later I was wrong about that. The comments were moved to the talk page for the article. I apologize for my mistake and the wrong impression it gave others of Amalthea. I am deeply embarassed.
    • How do you think we can help?
    Since we will be attempting to resolve this on the talk page, there is no need to continue this process.

    Discussion

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

    • The comments were not removed. The comments were moved to the GRRM article's Talk page, where the discussion needs to take place. This is a content question and not a individual editor question. Taking a look at the items you added I'm agreeing with Amalthea that the commentary doesn't really belong. It's interesting, but until it gets picked up by someone else I think that this is just a bit of WP:UNDUE weight on the criticisim. Hasteur (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hasteur is correct and I was wrong. I am very sorry for that. I will be updating my earlier comments to reflect that. We will attempt to resolve this now on the talk page instead of needing the services of this resolution board. DavidG3276 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    As this issue will hopefully be resolved on the talk page for the article, there is now no need for assistance. My apologies for having taken up the time of others.

    Sometimes it's a second set of eyes to look at a problem is all that it needs. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Now That's What I Call Music! 79 (UK series)

    Closed discussion
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • The issue with this article is that it describes a music album which won't be released until 25 July 2011, and yet Bigwhofan (talk · contribs) is insisting on inserting a link to what amounts to a file piracy site which is an Internet forum.
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • I have notified Bigwhofan that I have reverted their addition and that it should not be re-added without first discussing it here, to which I provided a link to this discussion.
    • How do you think we can help?
    • The link Bigwhofan is adding should not be added, as Wikipedia should not be condoning file piracy.

    Discussion

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

    Copyright is a very important thing on Wikipedia, and linking to a site that violates copyright is a big no-no. These sort of links can get the Wikimedia Foundation in legal trouble, and should not be re-added under any circumstances. I've been unable to actually find the link itself, so a diff with the link being added would be helpful. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the diffs asked for with the site in question: First addition (this diff is of the initial creation of the article), second (re)addition, third (re)addition.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That site is unambiguously not appropriate. It is not a reliable source for the information it presents, and if it offers dowloads of copyrighted material, then linking to it is contributory copyright infringement. Inform the editor who is adding the link of this. If that is not heeded, proceed with warnings or an ANI post towards a block. The editor might be interested to read WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:COPYRIGHT. Thanks for bringing this here. It's the first post we've had that might actually be appropriate for WP:ANI, but if you can resolve it without administrator interaction, great. Ocaasi t | c 12:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Resolution

    This should go on WP:An/I since that there is the copyright violation in this. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 20:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    User:Bornking7 and The Nation of Gods and Earths

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • This mainly concerns the conduct of user:Bornking7 who says he is a representative of the group The Nation of Gods and Earths. Bornking7 has made several large scale edits to the article which have been reverted by other users [11]. I have attempted to engage him in discussion. He has been polite, but shows very little sign of understanding basic Wikipedia rules concerning NPOV, RS, acceptable prose etc. He also leaves very long "walls of text" written in an indignant manner which are very difficult to work through [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

    This mainly concerns the conduct of editor: Paul b. He has admitted to not really knowing anything about the Nation of Gods and Earths except that everything i have contributed is wrong. Still i have been patient. For example the NOGE is not an organization. I gave him the neutral definition of what the NOGE is and yet he keeps changing it back to organization. He is very condescending in his approach to me. He acts as if one does not know how to use reference tags correctly then there is no validity in what is being said. If facts can be considered neutral, I also explained the NOGE was not founded by Clarence 13X, it was founded by Allah. Again he changed it back. How can someone who knows nothing about a subject be the authority? Wikipedia had the NOGE listed on the NOI site as the Subsidary of the NOI. I bought that to his attention and he denied it two or three times. I had to walk him through the NOI page until he finnaly saw it for himself. You can go to the talk page and see the discussion for yourself. Since that point there has been no discussion on the talk page. I then revised my edits and just edited the most glaring false statements found in the lede. He still found the need to revert the lede back to how it was when i discovered it. The facts are that most people do not know about the NOGE and so they google it. When they do your very incorrect lede comes up and does the NOGE a great disservice. Your lede is not neutral and it is not true. So I ask again who is the editor that submitted that lede to you in the first place? This is a very important issue to a people affected by the false information contained in the NOGE lede. I seek assistance in making it neutral and correct, Paul is an impediment--Bornking7 (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC) title=Talk:The_Nation_of_Gods_and_Earths&diff=430076106&oldid=429928017]. So far the situation is not serious, but this user believes that the group he represents is being deliberately misdescribed. His most recent edit changed the name of the founder of the organisation to "Allah" [12] [13]. There are WP:COMPETENCE issues - his edits are often misspelled and ungrammatical. Strangely he included his user signature in the article twice, but all his talk page postings are signboted.[reply]

    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • How do you think we can help?
    • I am mainly hoping for some support regarding the policy and content issues and am hoping that some editor who is rather more on Bornking7's "wavelength", as it were, may come forward to help to communicate with him before this turns into a conflict in which he identifies me as an enemy of his, or of his group, which is certainly not my intent. Paul B (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. I think that the best thing to do is to let the people who are helping the user to get more knowledge. This is not really a dispute either. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it is a dispute, since it concerns very divergent views about the content of the article. Paul B (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a full-blown dispute yet, but we can help. It's certainly a disagreement, and AN/I is not the place for it, so why not here? One recommendation is to have Bornking read a guide we wrote up in the irc help channel, the plain and simple conflict of interest guide. It's a top to bottom walkthrough of editing, communicating, and neutrality principles and practices. Meanwhile simply revert and request a reliable source be provided for any changes, explaining that Wikipedia only operates on material that can be verified in such a source. If that doesn't work, AN/I is the unfortunate last resort. Hopefully Bornking will get the idea, but give him a few chances since new editors have a learning curve. Just repeatedly and calmly explain our policy and basic operations. Also request Bornking post short comments which include key points and references. And let's double-check the sources. If we're misrepresenting something, find some good research and clear it up. Ocaasi t | c 01:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've not been involved with the article at all but merely came across the report on ANI and popped over to Bornking's talk page to drop some advice and a few links to try to nudge him in the right direction of policy. However, it looks like that was a somewhat vain hope. I tend to avoid political and religious articles since they're often a minefield judging by the reports I've read on ANI. This really started as Bornking's misunderstanding of the policies, but with the number of times others have been trying to get him to conform to policy, it's involved into a lot of WP:IDHT. Bornking really needs to understand that no one is misrepresenting his group but neither are we able to let him run amok and do as he wishes. --Blackmane (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I too offered help and generally feel the same as Blackmane. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    User:Arilang1234 and Boxer Rebellion

    • Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)
    • Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
    • Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.
    • How do you think we can help?
    • Find an agreeable procedure to vet controversial changes to the Boxer Rebellion article by Arilang1234;
    • Find an agreeable procedure to vet controversial new articles about the Boxer Rebellion by Arilang1234.

    Discussion

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

    Yihetuan boxers rebellion, or uprising, or rioting, call it whatever you may, is an historical event that happened more than 100 years ago, and hundreds of books, English and Chinese, had been written about it. For some strange reasons, Chinese historians, and scholars like: Tong Tekong, Hou Yijie, Wang Shuzhen, Jin Manluo and Yuan Weishi, some of them are university lecturers, who have done massive research and written many books on Qing Dynasty history, including the history of Yihetuan boxers, yet their views are being excluded from the current Wikipedia edition of Boxer Rebellion. All I want to know is:"Why?" Are these scholars not good enough for Wikipedia? Are they not main stream? Are their viewpoints too fringe to be included? Arilang talk 07:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unlike in medicine, where we have WP:MEDRS to govern which sources apply, history is a more varied terrain when it comes to scholarship. In addition to different schools, there are different perspectives, regional approaches, and eras. I think a first step here would be getting some experienced editors from WP:WikiProject History who can help navigate that.
    • Otherwise, the same basic rules apply: represent all noteworthy views in proportion to the weight given to them among the best sources. Contextualize views where they are not the widespread majority, give background on differences of opinions and describe the dispute where reliable sources conflict. If a source in Chinese calls the rebels 'bandits' that may be noteworthy but it need not be stated as a plain fact: "They were bandits", rather, it might indicate a debate among the sources, i.e. "The rebels were seen differently among generations of historians with school/region/perspective A identifying them mainly as B and school/region/perspective X identifying them as Y.
    • As for language issues, let's not conflate two problems. We are encouraged to use English language sources where they are available; however, that only applies if they are available and cover the full territory of views. If Chinese sources are not only not in English (less ideal) but also represent a noteworthy and unique view (worth including), we should be careful not to exclude the view on the basis of its language. Sorting out whether the view in these Chinese sources is noteworthy and unique is a careful debate for subject experts to have. Best advice, bring in more editors from this area and get their opinions.
    • Meanwhile, Arilang, slow down until you have consensus. If views are being excluded because they are written in Chinese, be patient and try and walk other editors through the sources. It's an additional hurdle to evaluate and synthesize them. Don't rush it. Ocaasi t | c 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection to the use of Chinese sources in Wikipedia if it complies with the policy, for example if no English sources exist (like the Qing Imperial decrees, the translations of which are valuable). I do object to using very politicized, overtly bashing statements when more balanced views on the Boxers are readily available in English. My problem is editorializing. Editors shouldn't editorialize on Wikipedia.
    Arilang1234 has a long history of utter lack of neutrality regarding the Boxers. Edits like these from 2008 show shocking POV-pushing, describing the Boxers as "looters" "anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing" "complete savages and barbarians" and "stupid to the extreme." Disputes over Arilang's edits have spanned years now and have been through AN/I numerous times: in November 2010, reinsertion of the same blatant, anti-Boxer POV in Boxer Rebellion was brought to AN/I, on Jan 5th 2011 User:PCPP brought Arilang's POV-warring and dubious Chinese translations to AN/I, on Jan 15th 2011 User:So_God_created_Manchester brought him to AN/I over copyvio and more POV-warring and at this point he was a hair's breadth from a block over his "barbarian" statements, uncivil conduct, and disruptive editing and was advised of this, and again on May 23rd 2011 Arilang's reinsertion of POV edits to Boxer Rebellion was yet again brought to AN/I. This only covers a year of incidents in the interest of time, but more exist, spanning years. It would be naive to discuss this case as new issue about non-English sources, when in reality it is about a long-time problem editor continuing his old ways, creating a flood of content/POV forks and once again inserting the same POV content into Wikipedia that has been removed over and over again in the past.
    The particular excerpt from Yuan Weishi's article, which contains POV statements describing the Boxers as "bandits" who spared "no one" has been reverted in different forms, for years and years. It should be excluded from the article as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT unless there is a sympathetic POV statement that weighs in the other direction, thus providing balance. Only mentioning negative statements on the Boxers is the definition of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Wikipedia has rules against lopsided articles.
    I would appreciate the community's help and advice in guiding a solution that will realistically deal with the repeated POV-pushing and slew of POV forks. NickDupree (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My 'if sources are being excluded' was a true hypothetical. I'm not saying they should be included, just that they should be considered. If they are a minority view, or an opposing view, they should be attributed and contextualized if included. Are there reliable Chinese sources which describe the Boxer's in such nefarious terms? Are the sources themselves expressing a POV? If so, attribution would be the way to go, assuming they are RS. Also, as you mentioned, balancing conflicting perspectives in a he said/she said format can work, as long as it's proportionate to the scope and significance of the underlying sources. Knowing nothing about the Boxer Rebellion I can't make a better determination. Arilang should pursue consensus in either case, and if unwilling to do so, there is always WP:RFCU. It doesn't really matter what Arilang's personal bias is as long as good sources are being neutrally represented and balanced against others. What can we do here, without a background in Chinese language, history, or scholarship, to help this go more smoothly? Ocaasi t | c 21:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    From the above diffs and a review of Arilang1234's contributions, I'm seeing clear evidence of long term disruptive editing and POV-pushing. His or her talk page archives are also full of warnings for disruptive conduct and copyright violations and, worryingly, they appear to have become more frequent of the length of their editing career (particularly in recent months). There are also a large number of ANI reports concerning problems with Arilang1234's conduct. As such, the content at the centre of this paticular dispute seems unimportant to resolving it - this is a fairly clear cut user conduct issue and I'm leaning towards imposing an indefinite block. Arilang1234, what assurances are you willing to give to improve your editing style and the way in which you interact with other editors? Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To user Nick-D, all I am saying is, "more widely held views" should be given more space than "minority views". That is all I am saying. Arilang talk 01:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weightNeutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views.

    User Nick Dupree,
    • (1) The above statement, is how I understand WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, that means, we should care about the difference between "minority views" and "more widely held views".
    • (2)if you have a look at List of 1900-1930 publications on Boxer Rebellion, you can see that most of the books written on the subject of Yihetuan Boxers between 1900-1930 even used the term "Boxer Bandits" as their titles, are you telling other editors these publications should be ignored and excluded? I know Wikipedia is English based, but Yihetuan Boxer movement did happen in China, many Chinese being killed, nearly all the eyewitness were Chinese(beside some foreign soldiers and diplomats), nearly all the Primary Sources are in Chinese. There is no way that "Chinese sources" are to be excluded, this is just common sense. Arilang talk 01:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolution

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=437488257"