Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution and get assistance to the right place; request for comment, conduct RFC, mediation or other noticeboard, if involving other issues. 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. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Button rediriger.png 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 guidelines and policy when discussing issues. 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.

We have an IRC support channel, which can be found at #wikipedia-en-drn connect

The DRN noticeboard has a rotating co-ordinator, and their role is to help keep the noticeboard organised, ensuring disputes are attended to in a timely manner, are escalated to alternative forums as required, and that new volunteers get any assistance that they need. They also collect the monthly metrics for the noticeboard.

The current co-ordinator is Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · email).

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. Comment on the contributions not the contributor. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.

  • Please refrain from discussing editorial conduct, and remember this noticeboard is for content disputes only.

Check that a notice was delivered to each person you add to the filing. If missing, add {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page then sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".

If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
  • The dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before requesting help at DRN.
  • 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 this page 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. 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
T-54/55 4NeedAssist Katangais (t) 139674528015 days, 14 hours ago Keithbob (t) 13980015001 day, 1 hour ago YMB29 (t) 13980933000 hours ago
Oscar López Rivera 7Closed Rococo1700 (t) 139690698013 days, 17 hours ago Steven Zhang (t) 139803174017 hours ago Steven Zhang (t) 139803174017 hours ago
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 4NeedAssist Lightbreather (t) 13972649409 days, 14 hours ago Theodore! (t) 139802532019 hours ago Sue Rangell (t) 139804554013 hours ago
Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipali... 2In Progress Heracletus (t) 13976112005 days, 14 hours ago MrScorch6200 (t) 139803312016 hours ago MrScorch6200 (t) 139803312016 hours ago
The Frogmen 7Closed Mmyers1976 (t) 13978464602 days, 20 hours ago Theodore! (t) 13979697001 day, 10 hours ago Theodore! (t) 13979697001 day, 10 hours ago
Aurora, Cayuga County, New York 2In Progress Happy Attack Dog mobile (t) 13978622402 days, 16 hours ago Theodore! (t) 13979694601 day, 10 hours ago Theodore! (t) 13979694601 day, 10 hours ago
Los Angeles Film School 7Closed 1MicheleWiki (t) 13978650002 days, 15 hours ago MrScorch6200 (t) 139803270017 hours ago MrScorch6200 (t) 139803270017 hours ago
Last updated by EarwigBot operator / talk at 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit]


Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Katangais on 00:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Over the course of the past few months, User:YMB29 has been repeatedly adding some inaccurate information to the T-54/55 article. It's merely one sentence, which I can quote here, concerning tanks in the Angolan Civil War:

"......At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks........"

He has cited a single source for this information, which I have repeatedly challenged with up to ten sources of my own. Nevertheless, the user has refused to engage in constructive or particularly intellectual discussion - demanding I cite information already verified by his own source among other ludicrous matters. He has refused to cite any more sources backing up this inaccuracy, and has done nothing to challenge with facts my assertion that it is nothing more than a hoax with no place on the Wiki, aside from vague accusations of invoking "propaganda" when I offer legitimate citations of my own (his source is itself a book of anecdotes with dubious credibility).

This is a serious problem, because his information directly contradicts all the other sources in the paragraph and leads to disrupted continuity. Furthermore, it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy on hoaxes. I have tried to be reasonable, but I'm at the very end of my rope. The disagreement has already come dangerously close to an edit war....and I'm simply unwilling to do any more work for a community member so seemingly irrational and obstinate. Accordingly, I am requesting an authority's take on this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have attempted to resolve this dispute in a civil manner, by the following -

1) Pointing out the disputed information's hoax status. 2) Establishing that there is a conflict of sources. 3) Providing seven sources to the contrary, and offering more if these are unacceptable. 4) Offering to provide page numbers for each of these sources for the relevant citations.

Each of these attempts at intellectual discussion have been amounted to nothing.

How do you think we can help?

The user's response to my attempts at resolution have been -

Accusing my sources of being 'propaganda', despite their established legitimacy especially in comparison to his, refusing to accept - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary - that my sources contradict his in more ways than one, etc.

I hope that an impartial user with more authority to deal with this unique type of dispute (conflicting sources and verifiability) can reach (and impose) a collective decision for the article.

Summary of dispute by YMB29[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have not edited the article "over the course of the past few months." Before my edits in the last few days, the last time I edited the article was in December, so I don't know what Katangais is talking about.
He has not provided quotes from sources to back up his claims, instead he relies on his own analysis of sources.
The text that I added is directly backed up by a reliable source, but he calls it communist propaganda and a hoax.
It looks like he has trouble understanding wiki policies like WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
Up until now I thought the discussion was going well, but here all of a sudden Katangais started throwing wild accusations at me. And he calls me irrational...
We have been discussing the issues in that article for less than two days. It is way too early for dispute resolution. -YMB29 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

T-54/55 discussion[edit]

Part I[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Hello, I am the DRN volunteer that will be moderating this case. My understanding is that the dispute involves this sentence:

  • At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks

Is there a source(s) to verify the content in this sentence? If so, please provide them. Thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a citation.[1]
Also, this sentence:
On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers[42] occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two[43] T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.[38][44]
There is no source, at least Katangais has not provided any, that directly says that the Cubans manned the tanks in that particular skirmish or that it was the only tank engagement, so the sentence violates WP:OR.
However, I am not sure if dispute resolution is appropriate now, given the limited discussion on the talk page. -YMB29 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There has been significant discussion on the talk page[2] and unless I'm missing something I don't see much progress. I can moderate a discussion here if you like but Katangais and YMB29 if you want a moderated discussion you need to stop making posts on the talk page and bring the discussion here for a fresh start. If discussion doesn't stop on the talk page immediately then I will have no choice but to close this case. So please decide what you want to do.-- KeithbobTalk 21:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
When Katangais opened this request the discussion on the talk page was going on for less than two days, but if that is ok, we can try to resolve the problems here. -YMB29 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why YMB29 wants a source for "Cubans crewing the tanks", as he put it, above. It's his information supported by his source; surely I don't have to verify it? --Katangais (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I am talking about the engagement on 9 November 1987. The one from my source most likely happened in 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Source? --Katangais (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
You are the one claiming that it was the same engagement as on 9 November 1987, so you are the one who needs to find a source.
The source I cited does not mention a date, but the website source you deleted says it was in February 1988. -YMB29 (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a logical case of WP:SYNTH. You can't assume that the engagement mentioned in the Russian source is the same one from the Cuban source, simply because both cite that 10 Olifant tanks were lost. --Katangais (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The number of T-55s lost is also the same and so is the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
However, that does not matter since I am not making the claim in the article, unlike you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, let's take one thing at a time. YMB29 has agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and move the discussion here. Katangais do you also agree to that? Or would you rather I close this case and allow you to continue to discuss on the article talk page? Please let me know, thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 00:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Keithbob, I brought the discussion here to seek an impartial resolution and close it once and for all. I have no desire to prolong anything needlessly by returning to the talk page - where, as you can see, an extensive debate has already been undertaken.
@YMB29: As it happens that little tidbit may be quite crucial to my perceived conflict of our sources. Can you provide the name of this individual, please? --Katangais (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Part II Fresh start[edit]

OK, both parties have agreed to stop discussing on the talk page and instead have a moderated discussion here. Very good. And we have agreed the core of the dispute is limited to the two sentences cited above. Let's start with the first sentence:

  • Content: At a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. In the skirmish six or seven Cuban T-55s were lost, but the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing 10 Olifant tanks
  • Source: Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2010). Ветераны локальных войн и миротворческих операций ООН вспоминают [Veterans of Local Wars and UN Peacekeeping Missions Remember] (in Russian). Moscow: Memories. ISBN 978-5-904935-04-7.

YMB29, can you please provide a page number and a quote from the source you've cited above to demonstrate that the source supports the content we are discussing? Thank you.-- KeithbobTalk 19:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the translation (pages 118-119):
I remember I learned about a counter-attack, when seven Cuban tanks were destroyed. A lieutenant-colonel sent T-55 tanks into a counter-attack against the South Africans. Six or seven tanks were destroyed. It was some critical defensive moment; the Angolans, I think, fled. He led the counter-attack and died (he was wounded*).
*It was a Cuban lieutenant-colonel named Hector. He did not die, but received two severe wounds, one of which in the area of the mouth, so later he could hardly speak. The Cuban film about Cuito Cuanavale has a piece about him, and he speaks there himself. In the newspaper Red Star for that year, there was an article about him and his attack... In the counter-attack seven Cuban tanks were knocked out, and only one tank was left with lieutenant-colonel Hector inside having been wounded twice. However, the South Africans suffered a serious defeat, losing, according to the Cubans, 10 Olifant tanks.
-YMB29 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Excerpt from the Russian Site Cuban Aviation, which is apparently describing the same engagement:
On February 14, 1988 the SADF and the UNITA begin the second heavy attack to the Cuito Cuanavale defenses, with forces sized in three SADF and six UNITA battalions, supported by more of 100 armored vehicles of various types, among them 40 Olifants Tanks. By this superiority of forces, they achieve to break the defense of the 59° Angolan Brigade. To cover this place were urgently thrown the unique 8 T-55 Cubans in movement in Cuito, by the command of the lieutenant colonel Héctor Aguilar. They stop the South African, destroying 10 Olifants and 4 armored cars, and losing 6 T-55 (3 by anti-tanks rockets RPG, and 3 by the Olifants). The remainder of the Olifants retires behind march. In this collision die 14 of the 39 Cubans perished in the battle of Cuito Cuanavale, but this sacrifice went not in vain, therefore the attack of its T-55 saves the situation of the battle, that already was in crisis. This is the first collision in the war between Olifants and Cubans T-55, and is a victory for these, which would be the norm until the end of the war. March 23 the Olifants support the last attack to Cuito Cuanavale, that finishes with another disaster, when the SADF lost 3 Olifants in minefields and by artillery fire.
Okay, we have a date: February 14. That gives me more to work with. I need to consult my own sources and find out what exactly was happening on the 14th, if the Olifants were involved, etc. I have a feeling that will go a long way towards clearing up the fog. --Katangais (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish I had seen "2/14/88" much sooner. New information is coming to the surface.
Polack states (p. 142): A split attack by UNITA units followed by the 61st Mechanised Infantry Battalion under SADF Commandant Mike Muller and the 4 South African Infantry Battalion made a determined assault on 14 February against the FAPLA 59th Brigade and remnants of 21st Brigade reinforced by other brigades west of the Dala River. After a time, his numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack led by Cuban Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt. The FAPLA lost five tanks but managed to damage a SADF Olifant.
Hamann states (p. 96): On February 14 1988, in a bitterly fought armour battle, the SADF and UNITA effectively destroyed FAPLA's 59 Brigade, which was heavily supported by Cuban contingents. As a result, most of FAPLA's forces were pinned down in a 30 km square just across the Cuito River from Cuito Cuanavale.
Bridgland states (p. 196-197): The first Cuban fighting men entered combat in defence of FAPLA's 59th Brigade on 14 February 1988...Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks...but nevertheless, the action in support of A and B Companies ended with five T-54/55s destroyed and one T-55 captured in mint condition with only a few kilometres on the clock. On [pg. 198], he continues: Seventy-five FAPLA dead were counted on the two battlefields and six were taken prisoner. Given the SADF's loss of only seven men killed and two wounded, one Ratel destroyed, one Ratel badly damaged, and an Olifant damaged, the inventory indicates a clear South African victory. But the fact is that the attack was a failure in terms of objectives Colonel Don Ferreira had set - the elimination of 16 Brigade and the cutting off of 21 and 59 Brigades so that they could be destroyed virtually at the SADF's leisure.
George states (pg. 221-222): Early on 14 February, the attack began with a fierce bombardment of both brigades, allowing 61 Mech and UNITA to manoeuvre into positions exactly between them and then simultaneous attacks...faced with the collapse of his forces, 59 Brigade's commander urgently requested reinforcements, and 3 Tank Battalion was ordered to launch a counter-attack. Seven tanks from the Cuban Tactical Group (under Lieutenant Colonel Ciro Gomez Betancourt) spearheaded the force as it moved east towards 59 Brigade's position (one breaking down en route). The FAPLA's signal was intercepted by the South Africans, however, and they sent 61 Mech to intercept the tanks, precipitating the first tank battle of the Angolan war. Visibility in the dense bush war was poor and the Cuban tank force - which according to the South Africans, "arrived in a mob", stumbled into a noisy point-blank firefight with the South Africans. The fighting was chaotic, and the Cuban tanks impressed the Olifant commanders with their aggressive (and often suicidal) sallies into the midst of the South African squadron in search of targets. With the range between opposing tanks down to as little as 100 yards, the Cuban commander was forced to keep his tank on the move, and by the end of the day his was the only tank operational (although it had been hit three times). As dusk fell, both sides started to lose communication between their vehicles, and the South Africans started withdrawing. This allowed the Cuban tank commander (who had rammed a tree and camouflaged his tank under the foliage) to collect nine Cuban survivors scattered across the battlefield - six of them badly wounded - and withdraw to 16 Brigade's positions, arriving shortly before dawn. The attack of 14th February was another overwhelming success for the South Africans, driving the FAPLA off the high ground and, following a weak attempt to re-occupy 59 Brigade's positions the next day, the FAPLA withdrew to its last foothold, the Tumpo Triangle.
Heitman states (pg. 233) in his very lengthy chapter entitled The Attack on 59 Brigade: Almost immediately after the artillery began firing, FAPLA tanks engaged 61 Mech from the west, south, and east. Several of them began manoeuvring very aggressively to attack 61 Mech, and the artillery fire was adjusted to support them. Five of these tanks were shot out by 61 Mech during this fighting. Two more were shot out by 4 SAI; one by an Olifant, another by a Ratel-90....this group of tanks was not very well handled, and they arrived in front of the South Africans "in a mob", so that only the poor visibility in the thick bush saved them from instant destruction. The bush was so thick that some of these tanks were only visible at ten metres. 61 Mech later reported that they had mixed Cuban and FAPLA crews, the commander and the gunner generally being Cubans. At 18h25 61 Mech received artillery and direct fire; one Ratel was hit by a 23mm round which wounded one member of its crew. Unusually, the artillery fire was accurate and was accurately adjusted as the South Africans moved. A second Ratel was hit by 23mm rounds, killing four men and wounding three. Another Ratel was damaged by 130mm shrapnel. 61 Mech now isolated these FAPLA elements with fire and dealt with them. 4 SAI had manoeuvred alongside 61 Mech to support it, and the FAPLA attack soon broke down. Seven T-54/55s, a BTR-60, and three other vehicles were destroyed. Fourteen Cubans were killed in their tanks and about 100 FAPLA infantry were also killed in this clash.
Obviously I was mistaken about there being only being one tank-on-tank clash in the '87/'88 campaign. I trust these quotes will be helpful. Thanks, --Katangais (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
These look to be describing the same event, although some of the details are different, like the name of the Cuban officer who led the attack.
The main difference is who was more successful on the battlefield.
However, while saying that it was a victory for the South Africans, both Bridgland and George also say that the Cuban counter-attack saved the situation by preventing the South Africans from cutting off the Angolan units, so in that they agree with the source I quoted above. -YMB29 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your research and discussion points. Now that some new information has been provided is there any bit of compromise or common ground emerging?-- KeithbobTalk 12:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't debating whether or not the engagement was a decided success or failure by the SADF/FAPLA - on the whole Cuito Cuanavale was a series of stalemates and pyrrhic victories for both sides. I'm merely concerned with the hardware. In fact, the main gripe I had with his information was the casualty count. YMB29's source claims that 10 Olifants were destroyed by T-55s in the above engagement. As you can see from the quotes I have provided above, none of my sources support this. --Katangais (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
These sources are mostly based on the South African accounts of the battle.
The Cuban accounts are different, but that is no reason to exclude what they say. -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Keithbob: And here we are back where we started. Now can you see where the disagreement is made? I wanted to exclude the Russian account from the article because it's clearly incorrect, but when I removed it YMB29 accused me of "censoring" information. Yet you see for yourself that I've done my research - an overwhelming number of sources clearly point to its inaccuracy. If we allow this preposterous anecdote to remain up, it's a blatant example of WP:Hoax. --Katangais (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You can't remove information from a reliable source just because you disagree with it and think it is incorrect, see WP:TRUTH.
We have to go by what all the reliable sources say, and not only those that represent the South African point of view. -YMB29 (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
But see, I don't disagree with it. Heitman, Brigland, George, and Polack do. Your "reliable source" is a book of anecdotes by former Soviet military personnel. And BTW, since when have my sources only represented a South African point of view? --Katangais (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
In general they represent the South African view, and you can't have only those sources in the article.
The source I quoted contains interviews of people who were there and also notes by historians. You can't dismiss it as a book of anecdotes...
It is common for certain sources to disagree with other ones. However, in such cases you can't judge which sources are correct and exclude the ones you think are wrong. -YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
It is a a book of anecdotes as far as the article is concerned - print sources with the appropriate academic research are often much more credible than personal interviews. I can, and have challenged, that publication with sources of my own. But of course that's irrelevant to the likes of you, because any account that disagrees with the Russian one is apparently South African POV. Never mind the fact that my cites include one American and two Englishmen.
Where's the third, fourth, or even fifth party here? It's obvious that I've successfully challenged that tidbit of nonsense, gone directly to the reliability of his source, and want it removed from the article ASAP, per WP:HOAX. It's also painfully clear that he thinks I'm censoring the article to support POV rather than simply calling out dubious information. It's one sentence. This should have been resolved a week ago. --Katangais (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone feels a source is not reliable. Then they can say why and discuss on the talk page (which it looks like you have done already). The next step would be to take that source to WP:RSN for a discussion with uninvolved editors who would comment on the source's merits. If the reliability of the source is not in question then the source can be cited in the article. If there are several other sources who give information that contradicts the first source then that's OK, info from those sources should also be added. So........ assuming all sources are reliable, we add info from all reliable sources to the article. We don't generally discount a reliable source just because other sources contradict it. Now, the slippery part is that sources need to be given due weight (see WP:UNDUE). This means the same info expressed by several sources should be given significantly more weight than info from a single source. WP:FRINGE may also have some bearing in a situation like this but you can read it and see if you think it applies. - KeithbobTalk 04:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Part II (continued)[edit]

Seeing as how we've made this much progress here, I really don't see the point in taking this to WP:RSN. If WP:UNDUE holds thus: Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable cites, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public, then it would appear that I can be safely amend the information on the T-54/55 page to reflect the facts as already sourced above. It's already about five reliable sources (I can provide several more if YMB29 so desires) against one. --Katangais (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE does not mean excluding information because it is supported by less sources. -YMB29 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
When sources disagree each view should be attributed to the source (or set of sources) that expresses it (WP:ASF).
It looks like Katangais does not have an understanding of this concept.
Also, WP:HOAX applies to a form of vandalism, which has nothing to do with the dispute...
I doubt Katangais knows how to read Russian, so I don't know how he can be so confident about what the Russian source contains.
In general, US and British authors base their information about the Angolan conflict on South African sources, just like Russian authors base their information on Cuban sources.
The article is about the T-55 and the Cubans used these tanks in the conflict, so we should not only include the South African narrative about what happened. -YMB29 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:HOAX doesn't merely refer to vandalism. The way this was explained to me by a user involved with Twinkle, it deals with "rubbish input" in general, and may be broadened to include skewed/intentionally misleading terminology in an article or section.
All American and British authors base their information on the Angolan conflict on South African sources, and all Russian authors base their information on Cuban sources? No factual basis whatsoever. WP:Proveit. --Katangais (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I did not say all. So you are suggesting that the British and US authors you quoted base their books mostly on Cuban sources or on both Cuban and SA sources equally?
Also, WP:PROVEIT refers to information that goes into an article, not an argument that comes up during a discussion...
You need a user to explain to you what a guideline is? You can't read the page yourself? Information from a reliable source that you don't like and want removed from an article cannot be considered a hoax. -YMB29 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
You assert nonsense on Wikipedia in defence of alleged information, you must prove it. Otherwise the point is null. I'd be more than happy to do the same for you if there's a problem with anything I've stated.
Why do you insist on seeing things solely through the prism of South African/American/Cuban/Russian POV? It's not the source I don't like, it's the inaccurate information which I've challenged with multiple sources of my own. --Katangais (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the concept that different and conflicting information can exist in an article.
You are also quick to dismiss information you don't like as nonsense, which does not help you. -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on the above conversation:

  1. We are starting to get personal and assuming things about other editors and making comments on their perceived motivations. This is not appropriate per WP:AGF so let's avoid that please
  2. WP:UNDUE does not mean excluding reliably sourced content but it does mean giving more weight and emphasis to content that is widely sourced vs. content that isn't.
  3. WP:HOAX does not apply to this discussion of reliably sourced content and continuing to bring it up is disruptive to this process.
  4. WP:PROVEIT redirects to WP:V which is pillar policy of WP which says WP content must be sourced and verifiable. It has nothing to do with challenging someone's logic in a conversation on a talk page or dispute resolution forum.

As editors on WP we are here to summarize reliable sources. It makes our job pretty easy. No personal opinion. No combining of sources to form a new conclusion. Just summarize what the sources say and in proportion to the frequency with which they occur in reliable publications.-- KeithbobTalk 13:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

To come back to the issue at hand..... would someone like to suggest content that summarizes all of the sources cited above and gives both perspectives on the event while giving due weight to the information contained in the majority of the sources?-- KeithbobTalk 13:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Does the fact that I have multiple, reliable, sources by recognised academics of three different nationalities disproving the faulty information and he has only one count for nothing here? --Katangais (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
WP is not a battle of sources. If there are two versions of events by reliable sources we present both, but with appropriate weight.-- KeithbobTalk 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
There's no need to present two versions of events with equal weight - if one version is backed only by a single source, and another by ten then logic dictates we should go with what is clearly the more reliable account. --Katangais (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is not just one source. I found another Russian book that mentions the same SA losses, and information from that Cuban aviation website comes from Cuban books, such as Cuito Cuanavale, viaje al centro de los heroes[3]. -YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Part III (suggested text)[edit]

This is the sentence change I suggest:

On 14 February 1988, at a critical moment during the Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, the Cubans counter-attacked with T-55s. Six or seven T-55s were lost, but the attack helped stop the South African advance and save the Angolan units from getting cut off. According to Cuban and Russian sources, the South Africans lost at least 10 Olifant tanks, while South African and British sources say that only one vehicle was lost and a couple were damaged.

-YMB29 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

10 tanks to one slightly damaged...Christ, that's an unbelievable difference in figures. 10 tanks is an entire SANDF squadron.
I'll agree to the above changes in the article if we can also specify upon citing the figure of "10" that the South African account maintains there were only 3 Olifants involved in this engagement. Per Bridgland's text: "Major Andre Retief moved his reserve troop of three Olifants across to the right to deal with the serious position in which B Company found itself. The Olifants came into contact immediately with the FAPLA tanks..." --Katangais (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
This just says that three reserve Olifants were sent into battle, which does not mean that other Olifants were not there.
Also, your quote above from Polack's book says: ...numerically superior Olifants faced a FAPLA T-55 counterattack... -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Very well. In that case, I have no further objections to the proposed revision. --Katangais (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will make the change to the article. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see we have found some common ground for compromise.-- KeithbobTalk 13:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Additional sentence[edit]

Are you also ok if the other sentence gets modified?
Current sentence: On 9 November 1987, the only engagement between South African and Angolan tanks - then manned by Cuban military advisers occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish.
Should be changed to: On 9 November 1987, an engagement between South African and Angolan tanks occurred when thirteen Olifant Mk1As eliminated two T-55s in a nine-minute skirmish. -YMB29 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As we've now established that more than one tank battle took place, I think you could safely make that alteration. --Katangais (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will change it.
So I guess we are finished here then. -YMB29 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Oscar López Rivera[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rococo1700 on 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC).

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

Pictogram voting wait red.png – Needs attention.
Filed by Lightbreather on 01:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page, 10-11 April 2014: [5][6].

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

On this article there are a handful of editors (Ianmacm, Gaijin42, Aoidh) who insist that the words "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" must not be used in the lead. I have had similar disputes on other articles. Overall, I have probably had the same dispute with more than a dozen editors who take the same or a similar stand: that these words, or close variations of, are not real, but simply anti-gun POV. (Please read the most recent discussions' links at top of this notice/request.)

To the best of my knowledge they are all pro-gun editors, who also, again to the best of my knowledge, are a significant majority among active editors of gun-related pages. (Not everyone I've included as "involved" is pro-gun, but all have been involved in discussions re: the disputed words on the article in question.)

I would like to start an RfC re: the use of these words in Wikipedia articles, but I would like to involve as wide an array of editors as possible - not just WP:GUNS editors.

Other articles on which these words have been repeatedly disputed and effectively banned from regular use, as they These words are regularly used by WP:V WP:RS. Other articles where this has been an issue: Assault weapon, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Gun control, Gun laws in the United States by state, Gun politics in the U.S.

The primary objective of this notice/request is not to address any one editor's behavior on any one article, but to get help in crafting RfCs - one about assault weapon and assault weapons ban, and close variations, another about high-capacity magazine and high-capacity magazine ban, and close variations - to put to as wide an array of editors as possible.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

First BRD, then talk - citing lots of sources - then an "unbalanced" tag (which was promptly removed and called an "attention seeking" drive-by).

How do you think we can help?

Help, please, to draft, place, and publicize RfCs. (Place them under a non- WP:GUNS page/project. History, law, media, politics?)

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm[edit]

I am not a gun expert, but agree with other editors that the terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" are unacceptably vague. They have been used to mean various things, which means that it is better to stick to more precise language. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting, Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed to "ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."[7] This is easy to understand and accurate, which is why it is such a puzzle that Lightbreather seems obsessed with adding the much vaguer terms "assault weapon" and "high-capacity magazine" to articles. This appears to have become something of a personal crusade for Lightbreather, complete with an element of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it becomes clear that consensus is against him/her on this matter. The comments at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting show that there is a consensus against the terms that Lightbreather seems to want to add to multiple articles.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  • BTW, the description of me as a "pro-gun editor" illustrates why Lightbreather seems to have missed the point by failing to assume good faith. I am British and have never owned an air pistol, let alone a gun which could kill thirty people in a few minutes. All of the comments opposing Lightbreather have made the point that his/her pet terms are vague. This is the key issue, not being pro- or anti-gun.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather calls anyone who disagrees with her a "Pro-gun" editor. Even me. And I have been to more anti-gun rallys than I can count. Lightbreather's WP:CRUSH behavior on Wikipedia is completely unacceptable. She ignores consensus, and when she does not get her way, creates even more time wasting work, such as what we are doing right here. I don't know what to do about the situation, but something needs to be done. --Sue Rangell 01:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. As for AGF, I do it at first always with editors I've not worked with before, and with editors I know on new edits and discussions. Also, one doesn't need to own a gun to be pro-gun, just as one doesn't need a uterus to edit for or against abortion. Also, there are many people who own guns who are pro-control... but, again, that's not what my notice/request is about. Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Gaijin42[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Aoidh[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Oh because I disagree with Lightbreather, I'm automatically a "pro-gun" editor? I am not a member of WP:GUNS, didn't even know that was a thing until I read it here. To my knowledge I only very, very rarely edit gun-related articles at all (the only exception is removing redlinked companies from AR-15, but that's not a "pro-gun" thing, it's a WP:WTAF issue...does that also make me a "pro-Backhoe loader editor" as well?). Putting such an emphasis on calling anyone who disagrees a "pro-gun editor" makes it seem like their opinion has little value and can therefore be discounted, but since everyone who disagrees with Lightbreather is automatically "pro-gun", only those who agree with them should be listened to? That's absurd. I am not "pro-gun", I am however in favor of concise wording in an article, that is my issue with it and that is what I pointed out. Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't gun-related, so this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of "they have an opinion on guns so what they say shouldn't count" comes across as a little hypocritical. I don't appreciate Lightbreather's remarks and accusations and I have nothing further to say regarding this issue. - Aoidh (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote to Ianmacm, I am sorry if my original notice/request seemed to be about behavior more than content. I have edited it to emphasize what my objective is. I do edit gun-related articles, but not exclusively. I do so because I believe that a lot of the gun-related articles are, if not blatantly pro-gun POV, than subtly so based on balance or incompleteness. This may be simple oversight or it may be intentional, but that doesn't matter. When I try to edit, I am usually pushed away by "consensus" arguments similar to the one I got on the Sandy Hook article: old and/or weak consensus by a handful of editors. I believe addressing these two terms on a wider scale could help with some of that battleground behavior. I am not trying to wipe-out pro-gun points, I am trying to address balance and completeness issues. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
"Do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. - this is not the article talk page." Your commentary is not needed here, so stop replying to every single person who comments. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of "they disagree with me so they must be pro-gun and therefore can be ignored and it isn't a real consensus" is going to see you blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to Wikipedia; if you're really trying to balance Wikipedia articles it's your behavior that is harming any chance of that, not "pro-gun editors". Saying that getting your way would could help "with some of that battleground behavior" is absurd; you ceasing your battleground behavior would stop the battleground behavior. From what I've seen the issue is you (at least at this article talk page). The content is not the issue here, your behavior in response to not liking the discussion is the issue, trying to shift the focus away from that is failure to accept what the actual issue is. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drmies[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Monty845[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by North8000[edit]

I don't know what is going on here. I think I've made zero edits on the article in the last year on one passing comment there on the the topic at hand in the last year there. "Assault weapon" (unlike "assault rifle") is a fluid political term, not an actual type of firearm. Statements otherwise should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia. So wording on the order of "define certain firearms as assault weapons and ban them" is proper, "ban assault weapons" is not. North8000 (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear North, I apologize. I didn't include you here to question your behavior, but for your help. You were in a discussion that another editor cited as a source of past consensus, that's all. The last time I had a dispute about words, after the talk-page discussion went poorly, I started an RfC. I received some flak for choosing that option as the next step. This time, I thought I would start first with this process, that's all. I want to start an RfC, but I know that how they're worded, where they're placed, and how they're publicized is important. Since these words keep coming up again and again in gun-related articles, I want help crafting, placing, and publicizing the RfCs. I am reaching out to editors who've discussed these before for help - that's all. Lightbreather (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment by AzureCitizen[edit]

If the desired outcome is to have an RfC, the simplest solution is to work out a wording for that on the Talk Page and just do it. I don't think anyone here would have opposed that. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Justanonymous[edit]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion[edit]

  • I'm Theodore, a volunteer at DRN. I've read the comments in the above section, and I'm slightly hesitant to continue this discussion. Several parties have minimal connections to the page in question, and this seems to be a perpetuation of a longstanding, widespread dispute. I'd be happy to work with all parties to resolve this issue, but I think that the idea of an RfC makes sense. An RfC would provide broader community guidance regarding this issue, which I think would be beneficial. Once some "ground rules" are established in the RfC, perhaps this issue will die down. Otherwise, if the RfC falls through, we can come back here and take a crack at resolving it. Any thoughts? —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Theodore!. Writing an RfC is exactly what I want to do, but I want help from an outside/neutral party. I actually want to write two RfCs: one about the use of "assault weapon" and one about the use of "high-capacity magazine." Is that something you can help with, or is there a better forum to get help writing and publicizing an RfC? Lightbreather (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. Unfortunately, one of the listed parties in this case has left Wikipedia; most of the other parties have not expressed an interest in further discussion in this forum. At this point, I would suggest the following:
1. Draft a brief, unambiguous, neutral RFC for each issue. E.g. "Is the use of the term 'high-capacity magazine' appropriate in articles related to gun control?"
2. Post this in the proper location; you could post a notification at the "Policy" section of the Village Pump, but you should hold the RFC on the talk page of the applicable article.
If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. If you need help posting the RfC, I can be of assistance. If there are no objections, I will close this thread in a few hours. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Heracletus on 01:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

We disagree with User:Qwerty786 over the article of this Assembly and the article of Association of Serbian municipalities, Kosovo. The Assembly mentioned is the assembly of the association mentioned. Initially, this association was backed by Serbian and not recognised by Kosovo Albanian authorities. Then, the two governments agreed on such an association in the Brussels Agreement (2013) which would have the exact structure as the previous one. For me this means that the new envisaged association and assembly are clear continuations of the old ones. Furthermore, the Agreement mentions that Serbian-backed courts and police in North Kosovo will be integrated in the Pristina organised judicial and police structures. The exact details of implementation are still under negotiation. Although the Agreement is intended as a compromise and tries to be as neutral as possible mentioning integrations and mergings, User:Qwerty786 keeps repeating that "Serbian structures are abolished" and thus proceeded to remove referenced material from these pages about the previous institutions, association/community and assembly. Even if one agrees that the previous institutions were abolished and not integrated or merged, even though this is contrary to the language of the Agreement, this does not mean that we should vanish all information about the past institutions from wikipedia. Even though, I kept saying this and making the articles representing the new institutions while also mentioning the past ones, and even though the article is under the ArbCom's Balkans decision, the user reverted thrice the page of the Assembly, in order to make the according to him "abolished" past institutions vanish, clearly pushing a POV. It was clearly mentioned that these past institutions were supported by Serbia and not by Kosovo Albanians or UNMIK and that when negotiations are over the new ones will take over. We kept talking about this in our talk pages, but to no avail.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried talking to the user on his talk page, explaining what content I wanted to change and why. I did some changes that I think were clearly NPOV, supporting neither side. I tried explaining why his changes were POV. I made a section on the articles' talk pages. I tried asking another user who reverted to provide an opinion on ways to resolve, but he just refused. And, I also tried to get more opinions by posting on wikiprojects Serbia and Kosovo.

How do you think we can help?

Obviously, an Agreement that would dissolve something and set something almost exactly similar, would mean that one is the continuation of the other, for example the EU and the European Communities. However, this Agreement does not explicitly dissolve anything, it is formulated to integrate, merge & conciliate, being a compromise. Even if it did dissolve, this is no reason to remove again and again referenced material just because something may no longer exist. I want to reach a NPOV consensus.

Summary of dispute by Qwerty786[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I am posting the facts of this entire situation. The Brussels deal is about abolishing all Government of Serbia institutions in Kosovo. This of course includes the Assembly of Municipalities that was formed on the basis of Serbia organized elections in 2008. Just like the police and court systems have been or in the process of being abolished so will all the structures formed from the illegal parallel elections of 2008. The new Assembly of Serbian municipalities can't have the same structure was the assembly formed in 2008 as the result of those elections. The 2013 elections will result in a new assembly that really has nothing to do with the assembly formed as a result of the elections of 2008. Just because two institutions have the word assembly attached doesn't mean they are related in any way. The assembly that will be created soon as a result of Serbs voting in Kosovo run elections doesn't cover the same territory have the same voting methods and more. They are of no relation. Heracletus is trying to push a POV that is not grounded in the reality of what is going on and seems intent on saying even what Belgrade and Serbia isn't saying! Serbia agreed to the Bruseels deal which abolished all Serbian government institutions in Kosovo which includes the now inactive assembly that will very shortly be formally abolished.

This article is very important because it talks about 26 municipalities. How can the structure be the same if it is going from 26 to 5 or 6? The structure used is radically different. The municipalities used in the Serbia organized elections don't even exist now in Kosovo law.

The issues of the use of the term Metohija was abolished in Brussels! All you have to do is read the Brussels agreement. Qwerty786 (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Assembly of the Community of Serbian municipalities discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

24-hour closing notice[edit]

The Frogmen[edit]

Aurora, Cayuga County, New York[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Happy Attack Dog mobile on 23:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The two editors are battling over the trail on if there should be a picture and if it is public or Private property. all they are doing is fighting each other over it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Laholland, Greeneyedsallie

How do you think we can help?

By coming to a consensus, calming everyone down, and to stop this bloody madness.

Summary of dispute by Laholland[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Greeneyedsallie[edit]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I am a regular visitor to the village of Aurora and I enjoy the village's four milelakefront hiking trail, which begins at Wells College, and continues north to the hamlet of Levana. Earlier this year, I posted a winter photo of what the folks in Aurora call "The Lake Path." I noticed it, and the description of this trail, which was under the Geography section, had disappeared. Thus began this edit war. I know this trail exists as I have been hiking it for many years. Locals tell me the trail is older than the ajacent railroad bed. Many people use this trail. Like many roads and sidewalks in Central New York, itpasses through private property. A lawyer tells me it is technically a prescriptive easement. The description on the Wikipedia page mentions all of this and links to a definition of a prescriptive easement. So yes, this trail passes through many parcels of private property, and has done so since about 1825. Recently one family claiming a right to block public use. Villagers say this is a land grab. It is defiantly a dispute, and it makes walking on that small section of the trail stressful for many people. I avoid that area though I have done my due diligence and learned the legal status quo is that this is a public trail and the police will not block its use. In my attempt to compromise with Laholland, I suggest that he/she add information to the page referencing this controversy and his/her take on it rather than remove a photo and description of the trail. This way, the public can be fully informed about the controversy, and both Laholland and myself will have collaborated in making this page more comprehensive.

Both Laholland and myself were asked not to have an edit war. I have respected that request, yet I see the page was once again edited by Laholland. Also, Laholland is trying to guess at my non-Wikipedia identity. I believe this violates Wikipedia protocol. In this silly case, exposing identity is not dangerous or problematic. But since Wikipedia is global, and people who post often put them selves at risk of various forms of reprisal, I believe we should all respect this. I am not anonymous. I am GreenEyedSallie. Also, I am afraid that if Laholland is not allowed to remove this photo and reference from this page, he/she will create a new identity and continue to do so. The edit history suggest this is his/her third identity. This is why I think that regardless of the outcome here, this page might need moderation. Thank you so much for your valuable time helping us work this out. --Greeneyedsallie (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Aurora, Cayuga County, New York discussion[edit]

  • Hello everyone! I'm Theodore, and I'll be helping out with this discussion. I will wait until Laholland responds to comment further. In the meantime, I want to let everyone know that this is a forum to discuss content, not conduct. If concerns arise over editor conduct, they should be directed elsewhere. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It appears that Laholland is currently under a 24-hour block. This should expire tomorrow, and we can continue our discussion then. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Los Angeles Film School[edit]

Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

Summary of dispute by Mrdthree[edit]

The SPLC monitors antigovernment patriot groups. I wanted to add a hyperlink to antigovernment because I found the term confusing. However initially antigovernment was just a redirect to anti-statism. We mostly agreed that was not the meaning SPLC had in mind. So I researched it and made antigovernment a disambiguation page. Two issues came out of this: (1) Is antigovernment a proper disambiguation page or is it a short article (does it have the right style for a disambiguation page?). (2) If it is a disambiguation page does the edit fail because WP:D (linking to a disambiguation page is bad style?). Mrdthree (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)