Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:DRN" redirects here. It is not to be confused with WP:DNR.
Skip to threads Skip to open disputes • skip to newest thread(purge cache)
Shortcuts:
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, 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.

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 TransporterMan (talk · contribs).

Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. 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.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over 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, 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) and the bot will archive it soon after.
Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
Title Status User Time User Time User Time
Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede 8Failed GPRamirez5 (t) 2015-05-14 01:59:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-21 23:13:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-21 23:13:00
Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events 2In Progress OnlyInYourMind (t) 2015-05-19 02:14:00 BlusterBlaster (t) 2015-05-23 17:48:00 OnlyInYourMind (t) 2015-05-23 18:21:00
Talk:Impalement#tagging 2In Progress 96.52.0.249 (t) 2015-05-19 13:59:00 BlusterBlaster (t) 2015-05-22 22:03:00 96.52.0.249 (t) 2015-05-23 15:33:00
User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#User:LuisaDG Link_removal 7Closed LuisaDG (t) 2015-05-21 11:00:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-21 14:23:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-21 14:23:00
Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers 2In Progress Jaaron95 (t) 2015-05-21 14:25:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-23 22:37:00 Jaaron95 (t) 2015-05-24 13:17:00
Hamid Arabnia 7Closed MvH (t) 2015-05-22 22:41:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-22 23:11:00 Vivek-jones (t) 2015-05-23 02:36:00
Talk:Kyle Jenkins 7Closed MrKing84 (t) 2015-05-23 20:04:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-23 22:41:00 Robert McClenon (t) 2015-05-23 22:41:00
Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)



Contents

Current disputes[edit]

Talk:Social Democrats,_USA#Lede[edit]

Pictogram voting delete.svg – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by OnlyInYourMind on 02:14, 19 May 2015 (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

I noticed the Zeitgeist Movement group description mentioned the names of their annual events but did not describe these events, so I pulled the description for "Z-day" or "Zeitgeist Day" entirely from the existing secondary sources. This was reverted. I later added primary sources and found a new secondary to describe "Zeitgeist Media Festival" resulting in this. Users NeilN, MONGO, Earl King Jr., and Tom harrison have each reverted these edits against talk page concensus, claiming "promotional": [4], [5], [6], and [7]. I've tried to see it from their perspective, but this continues to look like neutral characterization to me. It is possible some of these editors are letting their bias against this FRINGE topic affect their neutrality.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed on Talk page and asked for help in Wikipedia:Teahouse.

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps you can help identify what is and is not promotional. Or perhaps there is another angle that only the eyes of a veteran dispute resolver can see.

Summary of dispute by Jonpatterns[edit]

My experience of editing the Zeitgeist article is that it has been impossible to create a neutral article that correctly reflects and weights the sources. This is true in general, and in this particular case of whether to mention the annual events or not.

MONGO and Tom harrison haven't responded to the discussion, which is fine if they only boldly revert once.

NeilN has reverted, but has also discussed how to improve the article which is fine.

However, I would says Earl King Jr. behaviour is non-constructive. He seems to concentrate on personal attacks, calling users biased and single purpose accounts. More worryingly he doesn't recognise this behaviour when it is pointed out. Additionally, I don't think he understands that there can be negative as well as positive bias in the article.

Here are examples of his behaviour, attacking OnlyInYourMind:

ref d1

ref d2

He has made similar attacks against me, which can be seen in a filing on the admins noticeboard.

The best way forward in my opinion is:

  1. Earl Jr. should be warned not attack fellow editors
  2. A fresh RfC should be started on whether to mention the annual events or not

Jonpatterns (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3. I think it would also be helpful to use the talkpage version of Template FAQ - noting the outcomes of debates that are likely to re-occur. Jonpatterns (talk) 06:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sfarney[edit]

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

Subjects like zeitgeist naturally involve controversial ideas. In my opinion, it is inappropriate POV to pepper the article with such value-laden words as "conspiratorial" "internet cult" "crap" "bogus" etc. even if those words can be cherry-picked from RS reviews. If the editor is personally incapable of writing NPOV text on that subject, I believe it should be left to others to write. Earl King Jr. has reverted my comment on the talk page when I said that. Most recently, the issue of listing future events is characterized as "promotional". I disagree, and I point out other pages listing future events such as Burning Man and San Diego Comic-Con International. I am particularly concerned that Earl King's statement of his own philosophy for edit is almost diametrically opposed to mine, predicting little chance of resolution through dialog. In my view, "Zeitgeist should also be an informational page for those who are interested," with all the relevant facts. Earl King Jr. has stated in disagreement, "Also it is not an information page for those that are interested because its purpose is to document what it is with a neutral stance or to go where the citations take us," inferring that if an RS calls the subject "crap" and "bogus" then the Wikipedia should forward those pejoratives. In my opinion, if King's approach were followed throughout, Wikipedia would become just another organ for propagandizing the views of the dominant media, instead of a neutral source of information. Slade Farney (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: The best reviews of religion (a comparably controversial subject) are those by truly neutral, sympathetic observers, like Huston Smith, J. Gordon Melton, and Will Durant. Their approach to controversial subjects has enabled their writings to stand the test of time. Other writers, who include POV in their writings such as the RC's Index and Thomas Bowdler, fade with the day. Slade Farney (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NeilN[edit]

Focusing on content, I'll mainly repeat what I said on the talk page. This article suffers from multiple personality disorder. Why are we describing a yearly event in an article about a film series? Why do we have a separate section for the movement at all? If the movie triggered the movement then a paragraph should be added to Zeitgeist_(film_series)#Reception and that's all (no events) per WP:TOPIC and WP:COATRACK. Also, any sources used should be independent of Zeitgeist. --NeilN talk to me 13:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MONGO[edit]

My sentiments are about the same as NeilN's.--MONGO 18:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding that little about this "movement" can be documented. We're an encyclopedia, not a reporting agency so a YouTube series of movies are not very notable for our purposes. I think EarlKing is spot on.--MONGO 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

A polite correction. The Zeitgeist documentaries are published as commercially produced DVDs. They may be available on Youtube as well, but so are many other movies, Neither initial nor subsequent appearance on youtube is a certificate of irrelevancy. Slade Farney (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Earl_King_Jr.[edit]

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

The talk page is loaded with hangers on from Zeitgeist so its is not possible to not talk about users in this instance. This is only a couple of sites but they are numerous to call pro Zeitgeist people to Wikipedia [8] and stuff like this [9] and the person that brought this here is a meat puppet of the Zeitgeist movement, a single purpose editor with an agenda.[10] He answered the 'call to arms' that the group promotes on their websites as a true believer. His very first edit on his account is to Zeitgeist and his appearance coincides with their media declaration of trying to retake the article to their pov. Nothing wrong with single purpose editors but or nearly single purpose but they have to edit to guidelines. As far as the others pressing this they are Zeitgeist supporters also and edit with the socks and meats on the article. Thats about it. That is my interpretation of what is going on and I think they think they can overwhelm the neutral editors by getting bodies here and wearing people down so they can control the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tom_harrison[edit]

The article is regularly an object of editing by fans who try to use it to promote fringe views. Though better than it has been, it's still skewed toward the promotional. It needs to be a simple summary of what reliable sources have written. When promoters show up to edit out unfavorable sources and add puffery sourced to the films' promotional material, they need to be politely corrected, and if necessary shown the door. Tom Harrison Talk 02:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As yet, no one has been identified with objective evidence as a "fan." That is just ad hominem, but a bit milder than "sock puppet" and "meat puppet." Requesting polite treatment of the subject and full information does not prove a person is a "fan." The best evidence of "fan" produced so far is a three year old call to action on Facebook. Three years! The moderator has asked for examples of "promoting fringe views" with diffs. The word "regularly" suggests a whole list of puffery edits will be easily provided. A list of a dozen diffs would be worth a thousand accusations. The road is open and the way is wide for those one will take it. Slade Farney (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Raquel_Baranow[edit]

This is not where the disgussion should take place. Please comment on content, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 16:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

A page describing the Zeitgeist Movement was recently (and wrongly) merged into this article about the film. The description of the two annual meetings is no more "promo" than conventions or meetings of political parties. The Movement has opponents who dislike the movie mainly because of it's viewpoint about Christianity. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Christianity may be the issue, but the opposition seen here is more completely described on The Skeptic Blog. Recent events were described there years ago, play by play. Slade Farney (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
That link is mostly ad hominum, it doesn't address the issues of lack of evidence for a Historical Jesus or abolishing money, a Resource based economy, which are core issues of TZM.
Oh, I see, there's other links. I'll let the movie speak for itself and you can create a criticism section.
Oh dear, now I see how bad part three is of the movie. I never watched the whole thing! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Still, you have more patience than me. I couldn't get through the first reel. But to me, personal taste is not the point. Or rather, it is exactly NOT the point. The fact that Zeitgeist has been translated to so many languages, seen by so many millions, and sparked an international movement -- THAT is the point. It is an Encyclopedia subject, and the people who watch and enjoy Zeitgeist deserve civility and respect. The Encyclopedia should not be throwing manure because the film doubts the Pentagon on the subject of 9/11. The Encyclopedia should not be squawking pejoratives about "cult!" and "conspiracy!" over Zeitgeist's forbidden speculations about crop circles, or UFOs, or a human Jesus, or any other modern day heresies. Zeitgeist doesn't just step on Establishment corns -- it dances on them, as though offending people with forbidden ideas were the Dance of the Seven Veils. The Encyclopedia should just tell it like it is. It should presume the reader is an adult and permit the reader to compose her own ideas on the subjects within the film and on the film itself. So there is an annual Zeitgeist meeting? That should be included. There is a huge Facebook page? Include that too. The civility and respect that Wikipedia requires among its editors should be extended to its readers -- and to its subjects, whether they are Bantus, Moonies, or (God help us!) people from rural Texas. Slade Farney (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful much will come of the discussion here with such material in discussion as It is an Encyclopedia subject, and the people who watch and enjoy Zeitgeist deserve civility and respect. I disagree. No one deserves respect as a matter of course. On Wikipedia we have to do civility and neutrality though so that is a given. Outside of this limited artificial world believing in something, getting excited about it, coming to Wikipedia to bang the gong is a problem and that is what this is really about, people flooding the article with a Zeitgeist pov. An important point, the article reflects what the sources say. There is no conspiracy on Wikipedia to censor the article one way or another and its doubtful that any of the neutral editors really care to much about the subject in some larger cosmic sense. Probably most of the neutral editors find it comic that the conspiracy aspect runs over to editing on Wikipedia and we have ample proof that the article is the gathering place of disgruntled Zeitgeist fans. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow. You have voiced the issue more completely than I ever could. Now if you would just produce the "ample proof" that Zeitgeist people (or, as you so affectionately call them, "meat puppets" and "sock puppets") have flooded onto Wikipedia to overwhelm the neutral editors such as yourself, the picture will be complete. Slade Farney (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

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.


Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)#Removal_of_referenced_material_on_grounds_of_promo_and_paid_events discussion[edit]

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

Hello, I am, Rider ranger47, a volunteer mediator. Once all users have made their statements I will begin discussion. Please remember to comment on content, not users. Rider ranger47 Talk 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have looked over this and have noticed one thing: was the RfC on the talk page over the same topic? Rider ranger47 Talk 13:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No the RfC was about calling the films "documentaries" (which is demonstrably accurate by definition) vs calling them "documentary-style" (which appears to be an OR SYNTH term and a POV claiming it's not a "true" documentary, ie. the no true Scotsman fallacy; another of the many open displays of negative editor bias against this topic). OnlyInYourMindT 16:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me who is adding the promotional information and link to the diff? Rider ranger47 Talk 00:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am the one accused of adding promotional information. Diffs are linked in the Dispute Overview. OnlyInYourMindT 02:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The promotion debate is related to mentioning the annual events of the Zeitgeist Movement. This is perhaps the first diff where this information was removed, with the commenting statement saying it was promo and biased. If you look at the page history most edits are accompanied by a comment. There are people who are very pro Zeitgeist and other that are very anti Zeitgeist. Therefore it has been a challenge to neutrally reflect the sources and weight them and the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Formerly The Zeitgeist movement article was a stand alone article which by consensus was blended into the film series article. I would think if anything the advocates of Zeitgeist such as the person that brought the discussion here would be happy since the very very scathing critical section of the old article and a whole lot of negative information on the movement in general was dropped because it was probably not needed when placed in context of the movies. The next step in advancing the simplicity of delivery and streamlining the information is to redirect the Peter Joseph article into the film series in the same way. This is actually doing a favor for the Zeitgeist devotee`s that linger here I would think. Wikipedia is not an advertising site for information which becomes promotional for a group to sell ticket. Interested parties can go to their website for promotions of their meetings and special Zeitgeist Day, the Zeitgeist Challenge, etc. They described themselves as a 'grass roots social movement' previously in the article. Does someone announcing a 'social movement' at the end of a Youtube movie that has complete artistic control of the 'product' of the series actually expect people to believe it is 'grassroots'? I guess they do. Previously the 'event' that the pro Zeitgeist people keep adding back cost around sixty dollars for a ticket to attend their convention. Also Mr. Joesph makes x amount of dollars for each DVD that is sold. So, we have to walk the line between just explaining neutrally what the Zeitgeist movement is and exaggerating what it is, including their promotional information. There is no real way to document this beyond You-tube clicks which seem unreliable and numbers in Facebook groups, also unreliable. I hope that when the dust settles here the pro Zeitgeist people thank the neutral editors instead of fomenting tendentious actions which waste peoples time. According to JohPatterns above, There are people who are very pro Zeitgeist and other that are very anti Zeitgeist. I do not agree and this spells out what is going on. Yes there are the advocates called here by their group documented in many links already given and others not given. The neutral editors are after a fair presentation of the information. There may be anti Zeitgeist editors here but they have to follow guidelines also and their edits will also be reverted if they do not, the neutral editors would treat them the same as the pro Zeitgeist. Sorry about the length. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment - Equating being accused of being a Zeitgeist advocate to being accused of being a pedophilia advocate was, in my opinion, a very poor choice of rhetoric that could be easily interpreted as a personal attack at best, and I would recommend OnlyInYourMind to either retract it or apologize for the comment. At any rate, Earl King Jr., this DRN is not intended to prove or even discuss whether or not Sfarney or OIYM are Zeitgeist SPAs, and taking such an aggressive tone in making these allegations (which cannot be proven more than circumstantially, and aren't to be addressed here anyway as I said before) will not help your case in this content dispute-- all parties, please remember to be civil and to focus on content issues, or else this DRN case will have no favorable result for anyone involved. I would like to know if Rider ranger47 has any further comment or direction to provide to this discussion as the presiding DRN volunteer. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 17:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for my poor choice in rhetoric. I had intended the hypothetical to have the opposite effect. I have retracted the statement. OnlyInYourMindT 18:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Impalement#tagging[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by 96.52.0.249 on 13:59, 19 May 2015 (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

User:OccultZone and User:I am One of Many have not addressed concerns regarding the section of Talk:Impalement/GA3. The one comment made by User:I am One of Many on Talk:Impalement/GA3 is nearly identical to These edits, though well intentioned, do not meet Wikipedia standards.

The reassessment is an individual assessment; after 9 days, with no comments, I decided to delist the article from "good article status". I during the reassessment, I did not inform contributors because I felt that there were too many contributors inform. Some contributors have now been informed, and but the GA3 is not easily accessible on the talk page: One must go through the special pages and insert the prefix.

Per WP:BRD, both users should be discussing the concerns. Comments can be made at the section or at the GA3.96.52.0.249 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

[12]

[13]

[14]

How do you think we can help?

The page protection needs to be removed. If the page is protected, there is no incentive for any users to discuss changes.Encourage discussion on the article.

Summary of dispute by OccultZone[edit]

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

This edit was the last one, made by 96. Anyways, what we have to see is, that there are no issues with the sources and the information.

That is why dispute resolution is not the right place to discussing this matter. It is particularly more about changing the article's theme, for doing so, first it should be discussed, and this sort of edit warring[15][16][17][18] is probably not going to decide a lot of things. I believe that article should remain protected and any productive changes should be discussed on the article talk page. It is a GA, if I am One of Many or I am not going to agree with these changes, anybody else would still observe and recommend what has to be done. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please keep discussion in the allocated section below. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

The main issue seems to be my rewriting of the lede; User:I am One of Many states: "My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article.". I disagree with this assessment by both of you.
Take the following for example:

The included literature suggests that impalement across a number of cultures was regarded as a very harsh form of capital punishment, as it was used particularly in response to "crimes against the state". Impalement is mentioned as a punishment within the context of war, such as with the suppression of rebels, punishment of traitors or collaborators, or for breaches of military discipline."

versus

"It was used particularly in response to "crimes against the state" and regarded across a number of cultures as a very harsh form of capital punishment and recorded in myth and art. Impalement was also used during wartime to suppress rebellion, punish traitors or collaborators, and as a punishment for breaches of military discipline."

Take note of "The included literature suggests ...". This would imply that the article is a meta-review of a synthesis of sources. The rewrite didn't change the meaning of the article. There are other problems, as well, such as the circuitous footnote which I removed. I also changed the definition of impalement so the language was not as loquacious. It didn't use proper anatomical terms, essential in any article to prevent confusion and to accurately describe the body.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the content of the article. I take it that your goal resolve perceived disputes. This in large part can be achieved by learning the processes and procedures on Wikipedia. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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.


Summary of dispute by I am One of Many[edit]

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

Talk:Impalement#tagging discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - As written, this appears to be an issue about tagging. The purpose of tagging an article is to identify a need for improvements. The purpose of discussion at this noticeboard is to agree on how to improve articles. If this is only a dispute about tagging, and not about article content, it isn't worth moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but would like an explanation about whether this is a dispute about tagging, or about article content as such. I will also advise the filing party to create a registered account. IP addresses change, and it is sometimes difficult to work with unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
It began as an issue with tagging. The above named editors deemed that the changes were in contradiction of the article's GA status. An individual reassessment was done, but there seems to be no sincere discussion as to their reverts.96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - There appears to be a misunderstanding of GA reassessment procedure here. According to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments, but the IP editor acknowledged that that's what they did. Barring pertinent information from other involved editors I would advise the IP to let this issue pass and open a community reassessment if they feel it is warranted. DonIago (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is most pertinent issue but where does it say that IP editors may not engage in individual reassessments?96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
"Make sure you are logged in; if you are not a registered user, please ask another editor to reassess the article, or request a community reassessment." Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

:::I see. Well please close this. This has been resolved. Thanks!96.52.0.249 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If I make an account, I stand by my GA3. This will be obvious when I make a Good Article Reassessment (2nd). How am I to proceed when there editors who disagree on the basis of the IP account's previous reassessment?96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
96.52.0.249 - Try and discuss the specific reasons they have for disagreeing with your reassessment, and see if you can get to the root of their concerns. I'm not trying to suggest it has been anything otherwise from you in prior interactions with them, but do everything you can to keep the conversation impersonal, collegial and focused on the content, not the contributors, and you may be able to work something out. If it doesn't work out, perhaps try for another venue like WP:3O to get another uninvolved editor's opinion on the matter, and if that doesn't smooth things out, you could always return to DRN. Wish you well, in any case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have my autoconfirm status removed when I make a new account?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
After four days and 10 edits WP:AUTOCONFIRM. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
So you are watching this section? Are you simply following the rules? If I was to make an account, are you going to revert and ignore these discussions?96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
IP, I understand that this has probably been a frustrating couple of days for you at the Impalement article, but for the sake of this discussion I'd recommend you relax your tone towards the other editors. Assuming bad faith isn't going to resolve the issue you brought to the table. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
BlusterBlaster, i've been specific about my concerns on both the GA3 and talk page section. The other editors have not. For these reasons, i've struck out my comment saying that the situation has been resolved; id rather have the situation resolved now, at an opportune time, rather than an indefinite point later.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
If you feel the discussion would best continue here in the interest of improving the article, then that's perfectly fine. I'm going offline in a few minutes, but I'm likely going to pick up this case as the primary volunteer when I'm back (either late tomorrow or the day after), unless another volunteer wishes to do so before me. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@96.52.0.249: One of my main concerns as an editor on Wikipedia is in maintaining the quality of articles on Wikipedia. You were bold and rewrote the lede, which is find but two other editors read your new lede and didn't agree with you that it was an improvement. My main concern was that you created a lede that did not match the content of the article. I also disagreed with the direction you appear to have wanted to take the article. A good way to proceed in the future is to propose changes with good secondary sources to back them up. If you make compelling arguments, use good sources, and have patience you will usually find success. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I am glad we are in better states of mind. I disagree with the assessment that 2 editors disagreed with my version. Note: User:OccultZone said: "Then you should continue editing the way you wanted to.". I will gladly make an account and post on my user page that I previously used this IP address. But the GA3 should be considered assessed by me. If you prefer, we can close this case, and maybe resume the discussion on the talk page.96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've appealed to OccultZone for their input on the matter in case they missed the last few pings. At any rate, let me know if you're certain that the discussion can continue without issue on the article talkpage, in which case I'll close the case. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 14:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait until both of them respond, but since the discussion is on going, I don't see any need to close this case any time soon.96.52.0.249 (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
May I ask I am One of Many to elaborate a little on their concerns, ideally by providing specific passages or diffs of the IP's edits and explaining the issues had with each? Please remember to keep your commentary on the content, not the contributor. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 20:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I would be happy to. I reverted here for a several of reasons. First, as previously written, the was more broadly construed to include organisms. Second, the proposed lede changes were more definitive about the uses and purposes of impalement, which may or may not match the sources. Third, some detail was lost in the text reduction. Finally, although I think the text can be improved, I thought the earlier lede was better written. --I am One of Many (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I see. A few more questions, if you don't mind: I notice that your rationale for reverting his edits was based on WP:OR policy, in the diff you provided. In reference to that, what specifically do you see in the IP's changes to the lead that cannot be attributed to what is contained in the body of the article, or a reliable source in general (which would constitute OR)? Moreover, is shifting the verbiage of the lead to refer to impalement as a method of capital punishment/human execution, as opposed to a more general definition of the term (penetration of an organism), causing an overall detriment to the rest of the article, or appear irreflective of its body/sources, and why? Lastly, what details that the IP removed did you feel were best to remain included in the lead, and why? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I wish to request clarification on the purpose of this case, on the part of the filer. 96.52.0.249, you stated that your wish is to have the protection of the article removed as an outcome of this case, that there is "no incentive for any users to discuss changes" otherwise, to quote you. However, it is important to note that in discussion of contentious material, consensus must come first before putting the material in place, therefore whether or not the article is protected will not change the fact that the content is in dispute and must be discussed and consensus achieved before the change can be implemented-- in short, article protection is not going to affect your ability to discuss it, nor does it give the other editors an advantage in the discussion.
I suppose the simpler form of my inquiry is: Do you want to be able to edit the article again and that is all, OR do you want to be able to edit the article again and have other editors agree with or at least understand your rationale for your edits, and discuss the matter constructively with them to achieve this result, so this doesn't become an edit war again? BlusterBlasterkablooie! 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
User:BlusterBlaster, I've changed the request to reflect that page protection does not have bearing on discussion.
I shall address User:I am One of Many's concerns:
  1. The first concern, that it was broadly construed to include organisms, was rectified in the latest version, to include only humans.
  2. The lede is broken into 3 paragraphs, which I cut down to two. The reason for this was that ledes should follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, which current lede does not do. This answers your 4th concern. It also answers your 2nd and 3rd concern, because the current lede is excessively detailed, yet does not summarize many sections of the article properly, such as longitudinal and transverse impalement, as well as other variations of impalement and torture, and other cases of such impalement practices in Rome, Egypt, and Biblical lands.96.52.0.249 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • One further comment; from here on in I encourage some further engagement between parties here, lest the case grow stale - as discussion continues, I would recommend that once the IP editor has created their account as they mentioned was their intent, they should disclose their username here and start using that account permanently from now on. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 22:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Idea I've done some thinking, and was wondering if the article should also fall within the scope of WP:Wikiproject Medicine? The main article does refer to impalement as torture technique, but some sort of discussion on treatment should improve coverage of the article's topic.96.52.0.249 (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Ohnoitsjamie#User:LuisaDG Link_removal[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by LuisaDG on 11:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Jaaron95 on 14:25, 21 May 2015 (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

An editor wants to add 'proposed carriers' (which has significant and reliable coverage, and of wide interest) into the article. But the other editor wants to remove them stating that 'no one can be sure of what will happen in the future' and 'construction of the ship/cutting of steel should happen to confirm the project and till then it's just a speculation'..

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Added my view in the comment, but the editor won't concur to do so..

How do you think we can help?

Giving a good explanation of why the content should (or) should not be added into the article will help.

Summary of dispute by Nick Thorne[edit]

The statement of my position in the overview is a gross misrepresentation. I am sick and tired of being misquoted and having statements and action ascribed to me by this editor that I did not make or do. This issue was resolved on the talk page and has been dragged on and on by one editor who does not accept normal Wikipedia processes and now wants to bring the issue to the drama boards. Well, I'm not playing.

Summary of dispute by M.srihari[edit]

I wish that the "Proposed Supercarriers" remain, as it gives enough information about the plans of countries that are involved in creating supercarriers and also gives an overview of the future of the Navies around the world. I feel deleting this information would amount to hiding a big chunk of necessary knowledge from the readers.M.srihari (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Talk:Supercarrier#Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time. Will each of the parties please make a brief statement about what they want with respect to the article, so that we know whether there is a dispute within the scope of this noticeboard? Please be civil and concise, commenting on content, not on contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

I will be the moderator for this discussion. Please be civil and concise. Comment on content, not on contributors. I see that one issue is whether there should be a Proposed Supercarriers section, limited to classes of supercarriers for which unclassified proposals have been published by nations. Will each editor please state whether they want a Proposed Supercarriers section, and why or why not? Provide your comments in your own section; there is no threaded discussion. (Any editor who does not want to participate is not required to participate.) If we cannot reach agreement by discussion here, would the editors be willing to have a Request for Comments used to obtain consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

First statement by Nick Thorne[edit]

First statement by M. srihari[edit]

I agree to have a WP:RFC. M.srihari (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

First statement by Jaaron95[edit]

I do want the section included in the article because, 1) the article already has 'Supercarriers in Service' and 'Suppercarriers under-construction' and so, proposed carriers can be included which will give some extra bit of information to the readers about supercarriers.. B) addition to the 'proposed carriers' are not just speculations, but the addition of carriers confirmed by the respective governments, are significantly notable (as they have their own articles. See INS Vishal, Chinese aircraft carrier programme) , covered by wide range of sources and is of wide interest.. C) stating, it's just a 'proposal' or 'not sure what will happen' doesn't make it 'not suitable' for inclusion in the article. Yes, I'm okay with WP:RFC. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 04:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator[edit]

It appears that one editor thinks that there should be a Proposed Supercarriers section and supports an RFC, one thinks that there should be an RFC, and one does not want to participate. Is that correct? If so, perhaps this dispute can be Resolved by saying that there is agreement that there should be an RFC. In order to avoid crystal balling, the RFC will state that the section should be limited to proposed supercarriers for which there has been discussion in reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by Nick Thorne[edit]

Second statement by M. Srihari[edit]

I have no problem with a RFC. But I wish the volunteer could persuade the other editor to also participate in the discussion because I believe that would be the only way to solve this issue.M.srihari (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Second statement by Jaaron95[edit]

Yep, that's right! And yes, the RFC can ask for comments on the inclusion of 'Proposed carriers' which've been the subject of multiple reliable sources and is of wide interest and notability.. --JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 13:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hamid Arabnia[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by MvH on 22:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC).

Talk:Kyle Jenkins[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by MrKing84 on 20:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC).