Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Conor Matthew Mccreedy
 | Copyright violation has been removed and reporter has gone idle. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Dartmouth College
| Archived as resolved. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Muammar Gaddafi
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
A discussion on Gaddafi's title has been under discussion for weeks now. It is very clear that he is a political strongman, but over time, editors have placed other terms on him, which are faulty on several grounds.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
yes, it has been discussed, but the discussion has not been fruitful.
- How do you think we can help?
I want unbiased third opinions. People who can read the reverts, read the rationales, and take this all in without bias.
Screwball23 talk 08:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Muammar Gaddafi discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Editor Screwball23 is trying to make a POV change to Gaddafi's article. While Gaddafi could legimately be called a 'strongman', a more appropriate term for the present time is in fact 'head of state'. This forms the focal point of the argument we are having with Screwball23.
Not only has Gaffadi been head of state for 40 years, our article has reflected this since its earliest incarnation in 2002. in January 1970 Gadhafi assumed power in what would be called the Libyan Arab Republic. Between 1969 and 1977 he ruled the country as president of the Revolutionary Council, from 1977 to 1979 as president of People's General Congress. In 1979 he left all official titles but remained as the sole ruler of Libya.
The major media still refer generally to the government as the "Gaddafi regime" and the man himself as "Libyan leader Gaddafi". I believe this premature push by Screwball23 is merely POV-driven and not based on a respect for long-standing consensus both in Wikipedia and internationally, nor is this change something that Gaddafi himself has expressed in words or actions.
In some situations, we can even have a 'head of state' in exile. So before we declare Gaddafi over-and-done, we ought to wait for a clear change, not just some implied change that really amounts to original research. -- Avanu (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Check out the talk page on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi for more, as there is a lot of ongoing discussion on this too. Seriously, the term "head of state" is extremely subjective. Editors have been relying on Western sources that no longer even recognize him as the Libyan leader. In any case, Avanu's reference to the article's history, which only stated that he was a sole ruler of a Gaddafi regime, are entirely different than the point he is advancing which is that he is the "head of state". On all counts, the idea of him being "head of state" is inaccurate, incorrect, and simply against the facts. The fact is, Gaddafi does not call himself the head of state of Libya. He is a Colonel, a political strongman, and if you check out strongman (politics), you will see he is mentioned alongside the definition. He is not the formal head of state, and in fact, it is false to claim he is the head of state because that title is already given to [[1]] Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai. Gaddafi was a revolutionary, changing Libyan society from 1969 to 1977 into his jamahiriya, and since 1977, he simply calls himself the "guide" or "brother" in Libya's socialist society.
- The term "head of state" is too subjective. Firstly, he is not called the head of state within the Libyan government, and the term is thrown loosely by Western media sources which again and again are not holding firm to any of these labels. Avanu's contention that he could be the "head of state" even if he was in exile is absurd. The fact is, the title of head of state is subjective, and it is a POV term based on mixed international news sources, many of which don't even support that term anymore. I can produce sources saying again and again that he is not the head of state ; there is no source that will deny he is a political strongman.--Screwball23 talk 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- We should not call a head of state a 'strongman'. We call a head of state a head of state. Then we attribute any POV terminology to sources; i.e. Several sources have called Gaddafi a "tyrant", a "strongman", and a "murderer"[ref][ref][ref]. We should not state as plain fact terminology that is informal, inherently biased, and unencyclopedic, but we should include it in the article per with proper attribution. Ocaasi t | c 15:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ocaai. It is POV and unbecoming of an encyclopedia to outright describe any individual using a loaded word like "strongman", cited or not. Any characterization of Gaddafi's character must be attributed in line to its source -- "He had been described by Foreignland President Schmuckatelli as a "strongman"...(citation)" -- and, I'd argue, confined to a section that specifically deals with his public image and the corresponding teaser line in the intro. Let's keep Wikipedia to the facts and leave the opinions up to the reader. NBruschi (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are for strongman, and the sources state again and again that he is a political strongman. There are over 1 million sources that call him a political strongman. There are sources that prove Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the head of state by constitution. It is false to claim that there are 2 heads of state, just as it would be false to claim that there are 2 presidents or 2 prime ministers of a country, so as an encyclopedia dedicated to accuracy, the term head of state simply cannot be subjectively placed on someone. There are sources also proving that Gaddafi does not, nor has he claimed, a formal position in the government, which makes the entire "head of state" label a subjective label which even he does not endorse. There are also sources that dispute the legitimacy of his regime, which make his position as the face of Libya's government less and less convincing internationally.--Screwball23 talk 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Even if many people call him a strongman, we still define him by his formal title, which is 'head of state' or 'head of state in exile' or 'former head of state'; and if those words are technically correct, then "leader" surely is the neutral term rather than strongman (or in this case 'former leader' or 'exiled leader' or 'former ruler'...). We don't define people with biased or informal words, however commonly used. We might say: "Gaddafi is the exiled ruler of Libya. He is frequently referred to as a strongman." The difference is the first part is definitional and the second is attributed. That distinction must be maintained to avoid Wikipedia taking a point of view. Ocaasi t | c 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The facts are for strongman, and the sources state again and again that he is a political strongman. There are over 1 million sources that call him a political strongman. There are sources that prove Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the head of state by constitution. It is false to claim that there are 2 heads of state, just as it would be false to claim that there are 2 presidents or 2 prime ministers of a country, so as an encyclopedia dedicated to accuracy, the term head of state simply cannot be subjectively placed on someone. There are sources also proving that Gaddafi does not, nor has he claimed, a formal position in the government, which makes the entire "head of state" label a subjective label which even he does not endorse. There are also sources that dispute the legitimacy of his regime, which make his position as the face of Libya's government less and less convincing internationally.--Screwball23 talk 02:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- During the Western Schism, there were 3 popes.
- Due to the stalemate of the Chinese Civil War, the ROC and PRC both were claiming to be the legitimate government of China.
- In the case of Andorra, two Co-Princes act as the principality's heads of state; one is also simultaneously the President of France, residing in France, and the other is the Bishop of Urgell, residing in Spain. Each Co-Prince is represented in Andorra by a delegate, though these persons hold no formal title.
- In North Korea, Kim Il-sung was named "eternal president" following his death and the presidency was abolished. As a result, the duties of the head of state are constitutionally delegated to the Supreme People's Assembly whose chairman is "Head of State for foreign affairs" and performs some of the roles of a Head of State, such as accrediting foreign ambassadors. However, the symbolic role of a Head of State is generally performed by Kim Jong-il, who as the leader of the party and military, is the most powerful person in North Korea.
- In some states the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature. Thus in March 1979 Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, who kept absolute power (still known as "Guide of the Revolution"), after ten years as combined Head of State and Head of government of the Libyan Jamahiriya ("state of the masses"), styled Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, formally transferred both qualities to the General secretaries of the General People's Congress (comparable to a Speaker) respectively to a Prime Minister, in political reality both his creatures.
- And we all know that many people own mugs that say "#1 Dad".
- His formal title? Come on, man, read the references, because Gaddafi is not, nor does he claim to be, the head of state. Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the formal head of state, and I need to correct you because you are spreading false information and going in directions that simply do not apply here. You are contradicting yourself, saying "the office of head of state is not expressed in a specific title reflecting that role, but constitutionally awarded to a post of another formal nature." That makes no sense. He is a colonel, and by Libyan constitution, Mohamed Abu Al-Quasim al-Zwai is the head of state. There is no proof for your contention that a colonel is a title for a head of state in his country. He is not the head of state by the constitution as you are suggesting. Your logic would only make sense if he was called the Chancellor or Prime Minister or King within the government, which would make him head of state by a title granted head of state status within the constitution.--Screwball23 talk 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The point is, real life can be messy with claims and counterclaims and so on. Government and politics is not a simple math problem. -- Avanu (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, It's good that I saw this dispute by coincident, even though my name is mentioned above (Adamrce). Screwball23, please notify involved editors next time, or at least mention the DRN in the article's talkpage.
- I previously advised the editor to add "strongman" in the "In power" section, instead of replacing the "head of state" in the LEAD. Head of state is mentioned in the LEAD, used by outsiders, and leader is mentioned, used by insiders. Ocaasi's proposal seems fair-enough, IMO. ~ AdvertAdam talk
- Sorry I didn't know that you were not notified. I had the impression that it was like the 3RR posting that would automatically pop up. The lead cannot have false information. It is not true to state that he is the "head of state" because there simply is no rational reason to use a term that Gaddafi does not endorse, which is not true according to Libyan constitution, which is already a position given to another person - uncontested by Gaddafi btw, and which simply is inaccurate. Given the overwhelming evidence against "head of state", it is clear that the lead sentence should not have a subjective term like that.--Screwball23 talk 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- As long as we're here, what should we do regarding his title being "until the present day"? Shall we add "(disputed)", {{Dubious}}, or just keep it as-it-is until the status changes. My concern is based on his warrant and loss-of-recognition by most large states, while others got recognition and took control of many cities in the country. It's not a big deal, but I'm just asking. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Muammar Gaddafi resolution
Origin of death stories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories
- Origin of death stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
An article "Buran Origin of Death" was deleted and userfied. This article was modified by 1 line, and then reintroduced under a new name, which the delete-admin promptly re-userfied. Another editor created a similar article with a slightly better title, and instead of working with that editor, the editor chose to retain this content fork. Every editor, including the deletion nominator (the previous delete-admin) has advocated keeping the content and just putting it under the new title. Now we get to the point of this. Editor DreamFocus is a very vocal proponent of keeping material in Wikipedia, and has added a rescue tag to the article. The rescue tag instructions ask the user who tags to provide a rationale for their tagging (lest it simply be a drive-by). In this situation, it appears we have an editor who simply wanted to avoid the consequences of an AfD that didn't go their way, made a token effort to improve it, and moved it right back. Userifying is one of the policy-related alternatives to deletion, as is Merging. All the editors in this situation have been bending over backwards to help in this and the problem I see is that we have an overzealous rescue tagger.
This tag was initially removed by editor Snottywong who suggested that DreamFocus did not follow the Rescue Tag guidelines. After reviewing the discussion, I also feel that DreamFocus is really just trying to push a super-Keep vote onto the discussion, rather than addressing the rationale provided by the AfD tagger.
I bring this up at the DRN board because I have a feeling that it will probably escalate, given past conflicts with DreamFocus.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Dream Focus (talk · contribs)
- Yaksar (talk · contribs)
- Snottywong (talk · contribs)
- Epeefleche (talk · contribs)
- Avanu (talk · contribs)
- Hasteur (talk · contribs)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
- How do you think we can help?
I think DRN can help by weighing in on this at the Rescue Tag Template Talk page. Unfortunately, I hope this doesn't become a personal thing with DreamFocus, but we'll have to wait and see. I think people are perfectly capable of defending a position in an AfD and an improper application of the Rescue Tag is merely a distraction.
Avanu (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Origin of death stories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Tagging an article for rescue implies certain things; namely, that the article is being considered for deletion, and an editor believes that a certain amount of improvement to the article (typically consisting of adding sources to establish its notability) could convince voters at AfD that the article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Dream Focus tagged this article for rescue, despite the fact that it needs no rescuing. The main concern of the AfD nominator is that the article is a content fork, not that the article is about a non-notable subject, and not that the article is poorly sourced. Logically, there is no amount of work that can be done to the article to change the fact that it is a content fork. Therefore, tagging this article for rescue is inappropriate.
- Another well-known side effect of tagging an article for rescue is that it gets the attention of a lot of inclusionists, who often come to the AfD and vote to keep it. If I were not required to assume good faith, I would say that this is Dream Focus' primary motivation in tagging this particular article for rescue.
- Finally, the instructions for the rescue tag's use include (in bold) the following: "As part of this tag's use, please comment at the deletion discussion on why this item should be rescued and how that could happen." Dream Focus serially fails to follow this instruction, presumably because there is no plausible way to rationally explain how this particular article could be better sourced such that it would cease to be a content fork.
- It is for these reasons that I attempted to remove the rescue tag from the article. —SW— yak 02:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. The article was nominated for deletion. Discussion was ongoing. A rescue tag was applied, as is acceptable with articles that are at AfD. I see no good reason for another editor to delete such a tag, as Snotty did here. Even if Snotty believed, as he indicated, that the article would not be deleted. While that may have been his belief, it was certainly not a foregone conclusion. In such circumstances, it is at the very least incivil and disruptive IMHO to remove such a tag. And it serves no positive end.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- To be completely honest the AfD nominator said "Delete (the content fork), and merge any information into the existing article". The nom has no intention of any of the content being cut, just reduction of redundant articles. This makes it a foregone conclusion (and the snowball of Keep/Merge votes does too). -- Avanu (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- The nom is free to withdraw his nomination to delete the article. That is what AfD is for. If he wishes to nominate the article instead for merger, he is free to do so as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- If this were a debate over whether Origin of death stories was a notable topic, and we needed help finding sources to prove that, the rescue tag would be proper. In this case, though, it is about an editor who has improperly moved a recently deleted article back into the mainspace, causing a redundancy with a much better article that was created in the meantime. Above, Epeefleche basically admitted what a lot of people have worried about; the tag is simply being a way to rally keep !votes. Its proper use is absolutely not simply "any article with an AfD can have a tag." Yes, it's basically become that, but is for articles where rescuing the content is actually needed. It's incredibly troubling how often an article is tagged at an AfD, discussion occurs, but as soon as it is given a rescue tag keep !votes flood in without any improvement to the actual article. Note that I have no issue with the goals of the ARS; it's simply that certain members view it as a rallying point for "inclusionists" rather than a tag to help alert interested editors fix a deficient article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I said nothing of the sort. That's false.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You said that a rescue tag being applied is always acceptable at an AfD. That's not true.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You wrote: "Epeefleche basically admitted what a lot of people have worried about; the tag is simply being a way to rally keep !votes." I said nothing of the sort. That's false.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- You said that a rescue tag being applied is always acceptable at an AfD. That's not true.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I said nothing of the sort. That's false.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- A rescue tag is just a maintenance tag, it has no special properties beyond that. Maintenance tags are often applied inappropriately, and they are often removed by other editors. Removing a rescue tag from an un-rescuable article is equivalent to removing a {{Unreferenced}} template from an article with 10 references. There is no basis to claim that removing a rescue tag from an article is automatically a disruptive action. —SW— chatter 04:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Tag removing is disrupt. This article is up for deletion. The fact that some editors might want to merge content instead of other options, is not relevant. Many times someone has thought an article un-rescuable, and yet it was rescued. Snottywong's hatred of the ARS is well known. Note, I did explain my reasoning in the comment statement of my edits when I added the tag. Dream Focus 09:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I tag the article for Rescue with the explanation "This is something every anthropologist has studied, surely. Should be hordes of information out there. Anyone got a textbook?" I have also posted at the anthropologist Wikiproject asking them if they still use the four classifications created by the man called the father of anthropologist. [2] Please don't get hung up on the fact that two different articles currently have similar names. Focus on the content.
- Snottywong removes my Rescue tag with the summary "not an appropriate candidate for rescue".
- I revert him with "Don't be disruptive. I gave adequet reason when I placed it here".
- He removes it again saying "article is likely to be merged, not deleted. nom's concern is not about sourcing, it's about content forking. no amount of add'l sourcing would change the fact that this is a content fork, therefore no rescue is needed/possible."
- So, he has decided that it must be a content fork, and the fact that others might not agree with him is irrelevant. I revert him yet again explaining "stop being disruptive. This article needs more work done, and a new name, that's it. Use the AFD to discuss things"
- 5. Avanu removes the tag saying "Article doesn", then does another edit saying "No rescue needed,tagger just trying to avoid merge although it is merely a rename.Tagger did not provide rationale as requested by Rescue instructions for 'how to rescue' and really all !votes in AfD are for keeping content in Wikipedia".
- I did provide a reason in my edit summary. And this editor is not assuming good faith.
- 6. Epeefleche then reverts one but not both of Avanu's edits saying "Nom is free to withdraw his nomination for deletion, but until that happens while the AfD is ongoing this tag is appropriate--he nominated for deletion". And then Avanu brings this to here, instead of discussing it on the talk page as Epeefleche has done. [3] Dream Focus 10:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with me that it's a content fork. That's what the discussion at AfD is for. The editor who nominated the article expressed his concerns about the article in the nomination statement, and in that statement he clearly said that his main concern is that the article's subject duplicates that of another article. When you call for someone to "rescue" an article, you're asking them to improve the article in such a way that the AfD nominator's concerns are satisfied. Since the AfD nominator's concerns had nothing to do with notability or sources (and no one has disputed that the topic is notable), asking people if they have a textbook demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding about what the AfD is about. Did you read the nominator's statement? Do you understand the history of the article? This is really the question that I want you to answer for me: Exactly what type of rescue-work do you hope other editors will come here and undertake in order to save this article from being merged with another article about the exact same topic? In other words, what modifications to the article (apart from renaming it and/or merging it from another article, which is probably what the outcome of the AfD will be) would change the fact that it is a content fork? —SW— confer 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is not the same topic. If you ignored the similar names, and actually read through both articles you'd see the obvious difference, which I already explained in the AFD. We need those who studied anthropology to comment. Dream Focus 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's the discussion that needs to happen at the AfD. The nominator says it's a content fork, you can comment on whether you agree or disagree. The point is that no amount of work or "rescue" to the article will change anyone's mind. You have deliberately (and predictably) avoided answering the bolded question above, presumably because you are now realizing that the rescue tagging was actually inappropriate and only served to canvass for additional inclusionist attention. —SW— confess 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is not the same topic. If you ignored the similar names, and actually read through both articles you'd see the obvious difference, which I already explained in the AFD. We need those who studied anthropology to comment. Dream Focus 16:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if anyone agrees with me that it's a content fork. That's what the discussion at AfD is for. The editor who nominated the article expressed his concerns about the article in the nomination statement, and in that statement he clearly said that his main concern is that the article's subject duplicates that of another article. When you call for someone to "rescue" an article, you're asking them to improve the article in such a way that the AfD nominator's concerns are satisfied. Since the AfD nominator's concerns had nothing to do with notability or sources (and no one has disputed that the topic is notable), asking people if they have a textbook demonstrates a distinct lack of understanding about what the AfD is about. Did you read the nominator's statement? Do you understand the history of the article? This is really the question that I want you to answer for me: Exactly what type of rescue-work do you hope other editors will come here and undertake in order to save this article from being merged with another article about the exact same topic? In other words, what modifications to the article (apart from renaming it and/or merging it from another article, which is probably what the outcome of the AfD will be) would change the fact that it is a content fork? —SW— confer 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Question:So I understand the issue the history is
- Article gets created with a single story of the origin of death for a specific people
- Bulwersator comes along and PRODs it for a reasonable reason
- PROD gets removed by the article's author because Bulwersator didn't open a discussion on the talk page (which he was under no obligation to do so)
- Despite a significant discussion at AfD, the article is Userfied to Colonel Warden's space to attempt improvement on the article
- Colonel Warden does some improvement on the article and moves it back to article space 5 hours after it was userfied.
- Bulwersator proposes a merge to "Death and culture"
- Colonel Warden removes the proposed merge tag because no corresponding merge discussion has been opened
- 5 Hours later article is re-userfied because it still is below the standards of an article. Colonel Warden is warned to not restore the article to mainspace without first going through a AfD or a DRV to justify the article's relocation to article mainspace
- Colonel Warden expands the article to contain death mythology for other cultures. This continues over a period of a day, but still does not show encyclopedic content.
- Colonel Warden restores the article to Mainspace.
- The article is tagged for AfD again.
- DreamFocus adds the Rescue tag
- SnottyWong removes the tag in line with the Article Rescue Squadron's guidelines for usage. (1RR)
- DreamFocus reverts the removal with a less than civil edit summary (1RR)
- SnottyWong reverts DreamFocus's restoration with a more thorough explanation about why the Rescue tag is inappropriate (2RR)
- DreamFocus reverts SnottyWong with annother less than civil edit summary (2RR)
- Avanu removes the rescue tag (1RR) and explains why in edit summary.
- DreamFocus restores the rescue tag again interperting Epeefleche's action as an attempt to restore the tag (3RR)
- If this is correct I'll have further things to say Hasteur (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks correct to me. —SW— confess 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've given up my neutral position regarding the tag and removed it myself. I've posted what I think is a significant anyalysis of the tag's requirements for usage (and reason's to not use it) on the talk page. I've added myself to the list of parties for this dispute. Sorry I couldn't hold myself above the fray. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Looks correct to me. —SW— confess 17:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Accusations that the ARS is potentially a tool for canvassing are normally met with the explanation that the rescue tag is just another maintenance tag, and the group is just like any other wikiproject. And that's fine. But in that case, it must be held to the standards of one. The rescue tag cannot be treated as simply something that stays without debate. If I were to try to tag an article with anything else, and other editors opposed this decision and preferred the status quo, I would actually have to argue out my rationale instead of saying "it is improper to remove this tag." The same should apply here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Exactly, and multiple attempts have been made to get Dream Focus to argue out his rationale, but thus far he has refused to do so. So, in my view, the tag should stay off until he can provide a reasonable rationale for why it should stay. —SW— verbalize 22:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would feel more comfortable about the tag removal Snottywong if you did not have a history of conflict with some of the ARS members. I fail to see the harm of having the tag in place, and removing it just irked some other editors just as their actions irk you. In terms of canvassing, personally I don't give a rat's ass one way or another, since the tag canvasses deletionists pretty much as effectively as it canvasses inclusionists. Seems like a teacup o' trouble to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well then you should feel great about the tag removal, since 3 other editors have independently removed the tag from this article. —SW— communicate 23:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I think this is part of the problem. The ARS react in an ultra-hostile and defensive way whenever their use of their tag is examined so anyone who tries will soon end up with a "history of conflict" with them. I do not think that should be grounds to bar anyone from trying to make sure the ARS and their tag are held to the same standards as any other wikiproject. Reyk YO! 23:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Some members do, and to be honest, I can understand why, as some editors criticize them in such a way as to imply that members of ARS are not acting in good faith. I joined ARS soon after starting here, and the snarky comments come from a small number of editors on both sides, and that's been going on for well over a year now. I think it's all a waste of time, honestly, and draws attention from other more important matters. As I said, I fail to see what harm the tag does in general, or did in this case. AFD is going to be messy regardless, this kind of dispute just makes it worse. I see a number of problems in the timeline Hasteur put up, but the tag itself seems to be the least of the problems. My personal opinion is that the real problems surrounding ARS are stubbornness and borderline civility on the part of about a half dozen people, and tweaking the tag usage instructions won't solve that. But that's just my tuppence, and I'll leave it at that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would feel more comfortable about the tag removal Snottywong if you did not have a history of conflict with some of the ARS members. I fail to see the harm of having the tag in place, and removing it just irked some other editors just as their actions irk you. In terms of canvassing, personally I don't give a rat's ass one way or another, since the tag canvasses deletionists pretty much as effectively as it canvasses inclusionists. Seems like a teacup o' trouble to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nuujinn's evaluation that this is a waste of time seems accurate. Having all the usual suspects say all the usual things yet again does not seem productive. How is this dispute resolution noticeboard supposed to help? Please see the policy which reminds us to "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia.". Warden (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think Nuujinn is just saying if we could just work this out, we'd be able to put more focus on useful work, and less on this topic, which produces a lot of discussion. Personally, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask people to provide a decent counterpoint to the AfD nominator's rationale when someone uses the Rescue Tag, but a lot of ARS regulars don't agree with that, or say it is just too much to expect. -- Avanu (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The instructions for this board above say "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums.". As this matter is already under discussion at AFD, the ARS talk page and multiple other talk pages, this additional discussion is redundant and so should be speedily closed. Warden (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It almost seems like your entire purpose is to marginalize any such discussions. Why is that? —SW— prattle 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is the same user who you'll often see in AfDs saying something along the lines of "speedy keep due to an invalid nomination, since the nominator indicated they would be fine with a redirect", so it's not too surprising. Why actually make arguments when it's easier to try to game the system and take advantage of bureaucracy to end discussion?--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Warden, the specific dispute here is "How should we move forward with the incivility and edit warring regarding the usage of the rescue tag on this article". It's not an indictment of the article, ARS, or the rescue tag. Prior to this thread being opened no discussion was being held at the AfD page or the article's talk page about the validity of it's usage. Therefore there is a reasonable cause to have this discussion about the usage. We don't do Speedy Closures here. The issue is either resolved or goes stale. Based on the discussion happening there does seem to be at least conversations about the usage so keeping the thread open is not a bad idea. Hasteur (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It almost seems like your entire purpose is to marginalize any such discussions. Why is that? —SW— prattle 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I can understand Dream Focus's tagging of the article, as the subject looks notable and I think it would be a shame to lose the content. It seems perfectly natural to have strong feelings about an article that you view as being wrongly nominated for AfD. That said, I agree with Snottywong that the tag does not seem to apply in this case. I dont think there's any reason to assume bad intentions on the part of anyone involved here. As far as I can see it is just a case of misunderstanding, and I don't think there's really any action that needs to be taken. Let's wait and see what the outcome of the AfD is, and we can bring up any wider questions that might arise about ARS tag use after that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable. Avanu, with due respect, and just to be clear, what I am saying is that some editors on both sides seem to have taken the issues surrounding ARS personally, or with what I would myself regard with undue severity. What others see as issues of tag placement or problems with the role of ARS, I see as civility issues based on a weak assumptions of good faith. But that's just my opinion, and everyone's entitled to their own, and I do not begrudge anyone's opinion on these issues. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're close to the mark, Nuujinn. Unfortunately, a lot of well-intentioned and reasonable disagreement has sometimes tended to become based on personalities or history. For me, I think it is thoughtful to provide tag rationale when tagging, or reasonable to ask for it if it isn't given. Some folks seem to disagree. Hopefully we'll get to a point where everyone can be content. -- Avanu (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Origin of death stories, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of death stories resolution
List of Pokémon (599–646)
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There has been a discussion for quite a long time now about 3 Pokemon (Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect) not being able to be added to the article because those 3 have not been released officially. On the discussion of the article though, there have been a few reliable sources from ign.com but since Game Freak (creators of the game) have not officially aknowledged their existence users aren't sure if they sghould be added or not.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- Ryulong (talk · contribs)
- Blake (talk · contribs)
- Tezero (talk · contribs)
- New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs)
- 86.177.226.156 (talk · contribs)
User Ryūlóng seems to be the one against the posting of those 3 Pokemon species.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Users have already posted reliable sources which show those 3 pokemon and/or show the total number of pokemon to be 649, meaning the article is missing 3 and since the game code itself includes Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect it seems those 3 must be them. I think the species should be added because even if the company itself hasnt confirmed the species existence we still know they do exist, but they havent been released. Besides Game Freak hasn't denied their existence, they simply have no comment on them until they finally release them.
- How do you think we can help?
Please if possible help the discussion reach a conclusion since this seems to have gone for quite some time and still there is no clear resolution.
200.94.141.4 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
List of Pokémon (599–646) discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Some questions: How do you know they are part of the game if they haven't been released? Are the sources which mention them speculating on an upcoming release or commenting on already released but not officially released characters? How long do you suspect it will be until the official release?
- You have to balance WP:RS with WP:CRYSTAL. If CRYSTAL is not an issue, then the task is reflecting the quality of available sources in the article, with attribution to explain any uncertainties or irregularities.
- Have you considered briefly summarizing the situation you explained in the article? This could be done with a brief note, perhaps a footnote, which says: "This character is part of the game but has not yet been officially released." That would maintain the distinction without denying their existence by omission. Ocaasi t | c 14:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know if this needed to come to here, but ok. The problem seems to be that Ryulong is completely ignoring everything we give him. First he said that they could be added if we found reliable sources, and then he completely changes his mind and decides that we still need confirmation from "official" sources. After he did that, I just refused to take the discussion any further. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ryulong is right according to the policies of Wikipedia. Until these 3 have been confirmed by the publishers of the game, Wikipedia is not allowed to talk about them. The example I would use is data mined information from World of Warcraft. Until the information has been confirmed by Blizzard (the publisher) Wikipedia cannot support a article on the content (or listing of the content). The other example I would give would be a article for a reality TV series that is having it's casting call but has no premiere date. Because it isn't confirmed through verifiable and reliable sources we can't have an article about the rumors and speculation on what we'll see. Hasteur (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't edit in media/entertainment areas, but I'd take more of a middle path. We can talk about the characters if we have reliable sources, but they have to be clearly distinguished as not-yet-released. That said, if the reliable sources are purely speculative sources we have to wait. There would have to be some real world presence of the characters to list them. Again, when is official release expected? Ocaasi t | c 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Hasteur. The fact is that I am well aware of the existences of Keldeo, Meloetta, and Genesect. The issue is still that there has not been any sort of official proclamation or acknowledgement by Nintendo, Game Freak, the Pokémon Company, etc., that they exist and the only reason we all know about them is because of the data mining that Hasteur has mentioned. Honestly, this has been brought to this board that I have frankly never heard of before for no reason. Some IP editor apparently has an issue with our application of WP:RS for these pages. As far as anyone should be concerned, there are only officially 646 Pokémon, and three that we unofficially know exist but cannot acknowledge on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ryulong here. These Pokemon need to be verifiable through reliable sources if we are to include them. Until their existence is acknowledged officially, this is impossible. It could be that the Pokemon appear in reliable sources before being officially announced, but this coverage would be speculative by definition - all we would be able to verify is that there are rumours that these Pokemon may exist, not their existence itself. Also, we couldn't include speculative information like that anyway, due to our policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should really wait for an official announcement before including them. Also note that it is entirely possible that they may never be officially announced, so I don't think it would be wise to jump the gun. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources that talk about rumours of these mysterious three guys, then those rumours could be covered somewhere. Reyk YO! 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- True, I agree that we could cover the rumours somewhere if we had the sources for it. I don't think we should give each speculative Pokemon its own entry in the list, though. In this case a couple of sentences in the lead outlining the situation would be enough, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, they aren't just "rumors". They are real data found in the game. They are real Pokemon, but have not been officially brought into view. IGN's guide does cover them somewhat(it shows their basic information, looks, typing, etc.) and I think that should be enough to at least say they exist. Anything that is not in these three pages should not be shown in the article, but they should be shown in some form. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Then the resolution is obvious. Don't include the mysterious three in the "official" lists, but put them in a separate article about rumoured pokemon. This could be the nucleus of a pretty good article. I don't follow Pokemon at all but I bet there were rumours of other pokemon earlier that turned out to be false, and that could also be covered in that article. Reyk YO! 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the only way to find out about these Pokemon was to hack the game data. Blake, are you saying that you can find these Pokemon in the normal course of play? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, but there are sources available such as the IGN guide, and GamesRadar which list them. If reliable sources like IGN and GamesRadar list them, then that should allow us to. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Stradivarius: These three Pokémon are simply not available to players at this point in time. Sometime in the near future they will definitely be revealed and methods for players to obtain them will be made public by the company. For the time being, there's nothing that says they exist outside of hidden game data. And Blake, as I have pointed out before, IGN and GamesRadar are using the hacked game data for their information so the sources are tainted at this point in time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only question that matters for WP:V is this one: are the sources reliable and trustworthy on this subject? Can we trust that what they say about these mysterious Pokemon is true? If so, it is appropriate to use the information they give. It is not our place to pass moral judgment on how they obtained it. Reyk YO! 03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I would still err on the side of not including them until they're publically announced. No matter how likely it seems that they will be in the game, neither we nor IGN et al. can say that they will definitely be in the game until we have some sort of official confirmation. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not need to report on things that can only be acquired by going through programming data that was not meant to be investigated by the general public. Game Freak did not put in the data for these three characters and leave them unavailable in normal play and expect people to seek it out, like some sort of alternate reality game. If they do not acknowledge the characters, then neither should we.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only question that matters for WP:V is this one: are the sources reliable and trustworthy on this subject? Can we trust that what they say about these mysterious Pokemon is true? If so, it is appropriate to use the information they give. It is not our place to pass moral judgment on how they obtained it. Reyk YO! 03:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Stradivarius: These three Pokémon are simply not available to players at this point in time. Sometime in the near future they will definitely be revealed and methods for players to obtain them will be made public by the company. For the time being, there's nothing that says they exist outside of hidden game data. And Blake, as I have pointed out before, IGN and GamesRadar are using the hacked game data for their information so the sources are tainted at this point in time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, but there are sources available such as the IGN guide, and GamesRadar which list them. If reliable sources like IGN and GamesRadar list them, then that should allow us to. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the only way to find out about these Pokemon was to hack the game data. Blake, are you saying that you can find these Pokemon in the normal course of play? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Then the resolution is obvious. Don't include the mysterious three in the "official" lists, but put them in a separate article about rumoured pokemon. This could be the nucleus of a pretty good article. I don't follow Pokemon at all but I bet there were rumours of other pokemon earlier that turned out to be false, and that could also be covered in that article. Reyk YO! 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is, they aren't just "rumors". They are real data found in the game. They are real Pokemon, but have not been officially brought into view. IGN's guide does cover them somewhat(it shows their basic information, looks, typing, etc.) and I think that should be enough to at least say they exist. Anything that is not in these three pages should not be shown in the article, but they should be shown in some form. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- True, I agree that we could cover the rumours somewhere if we had the sources for it. I don't think we should give each speculative Pokemon its own entry in the list, though. In this case a couple of sentences in the lead outlining the situation would be enough, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- If there are reliable sources that talk about rumours of these mysterious three guys, then those rumours could be covered somewhere. Reyk YO! 20:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ryulong here. These Pokemon need to be verifiable through reliable sources if we are to include them. Until their existence is acknowledged officially, this is impossible. It could be that the Pokemon appear in reliable sources before being officially announced, but this coverage would be speculative by definition - all we would be able to verify is that there are rumours that these Pokemon may exist, not their existence itself. Also, we couldn't include speculative information like that anyway, due to our policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We should really wait for an official announcement before including them. Also note that it is entirely possible that they may never be officially announced, so I don't think it would be wise to jump the gun. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying that we need to acknowledge them as official pokemon. But if rumours of additional ones have been covered and discussed in reliable sources, then it is appropriate for Wikipedia to also cover those rumours. It is not appropriate for us to pass judgment on how journalists obtain their information or to refuse to cover certain things because we imagine that someone would prefer us not to. We are not an extension of Game Freak's publicity department; just because they didn't intend for people to investigate the game data doesn't entitle them to forbid Wikipedia from discussing it. If you start down that path, you might as well AfD the Climategate article and heavily censor the Wikileaks one. Reyk YO! 22:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on the quality of the sourcing. If there are multiple sources that specifically say that these Pokemon may appear in the game, then I think we can include them in the article, qualifying that they are rumours. If the sourcing is any less reliable than that, I would say that WP:CRYSTAL points toward leaving them out. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this. From reading the article talk page discussion, it seems everyone accepts that at least two of the sources are reliable generally. Their reliability is only disputed regarding the Mysterious Three because of the way they got their information. I do not agree that that is a factor and I'm not aware of any guideline or policy that says it is and I strongly disagree that we can declare te same source to be reliable when it suits us and unreliable when it suits us. If we do accept their reliability, then we can and should cover the Mysterious Three in the context of what they are: Pokemon that are not officially released but whose existence has been inferred from game data by reliable sources. Reyk YO! 00:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I revealed the information which is shown in the sources(plus basic descriptors which can be easily inferred by looking at their picture in the IGN sources). Is "It is an event-only Pokémon which has not be revealed yet to the public." an okay sentence to show that they are not yet official? Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- I still do not think there was a consensus to perform that edit at all. However, I will perform a reformat to the content to treat it separately from the officially known characters. I also don't think that the reliable sources being used in question should even be used, considering that they are only trivial mentions and statements that "We don't know anything about this Pokémon yet because it hasn't been released."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
List of Pokémon (599–646) resolution
Island
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
the dispute is about whether or not to add a sentence about the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
The sentence about the world's largest island and the world's smallest continent is supported by reliable sources, including Encyclopaedia Britannica. However, the opposing party claims the sentence contains an implication about the difference between islands and continents which qualifies as original research.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
yes
- How do you think we can help?
more comments from other competent users are very welcome in the discussion page. The three reverts rule should be enforced too.
Denghu (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Island discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I think BeyondMyKen is right. What you're doing seems to be taking facts from two different sources and drawing a conclusion from them that neither source makes. That's pretty well textbook synthesis. Reyk YO! 10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- After you made this statement, Denghu deleted this request from the board, but I have reinstated it, since I'm interested in hearing from other editors, either here or on Talk:Island#Reverted edits, what their take on this is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Reyk and Beyond My Ken. This seems like a synthesis, and it is a long-standing policy that we can't include syntheses in Wikipedia. It shouldn't be hard to find a source to back you up if it's the truth. That's the best way to settle this dispute, in my opinion. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Island resolution
Alprazolam
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
There is an ongoing dispute on Alprazolam (marketed in the United States as Xanax) over FDA labeling. Specifically, the question seems to be whether the FDA labeling actually constrains use past 8 weeks (months?), or only advises caution. There is some dubious original research going on as individual editors each literally pick up the bottle in front of them and read the labels to resolve the dispute. Predictably, this only makes it worse since it seems that old labels had different warnings and everybody thinks their interpretation of the labels is the correct one. Some editors have also denied that appealing to secondary sources would resolve the dispute since, as I understand the argument, FDA labels are not subject to outside interpretation. There is also some confusion in the discussion since one of the disputants is a rotating IP who declined to register a username. I've listed some of the involved IPs used below.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
- DMacks (talk · contribs)
- The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk · contribs)
- 70.137.153.193 (talk · contribs)
- 70.137.156.196 (talk · contribs)
- 70.137.134.251 (talk · contribs)
- 70.137.158.132 (talk · contribs)
- 70.137.141.96 (talk · contribs)
- 174.130.244.69 (talk · contribs)
- 67.163.175.248 (talk · contribs)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I protected the page as a result of the edit war, made some efforts to understand the dispute on Talk:Alprazolam, and posted this notice.
- How do you think we can help?
The involved editors appear to have agreed to submit to third opinions of uninvolved editors found in the discussion here. Therefore, hopefully this discussion will reach an outside consensus on what should be done.
causa sui (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Alprazolam discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Observation The 70.137 IP addresses (70.137.128.0 - 70.137.159.255) all belong to the same provider and are in the same netblock that geolocates to San Francisco CA. As much as I hate to say it, I think that extended semi-protection would probably be the best way to defuse this situation. Semi does allow confirmed editors to implement changes, and if unconfirmed editors (or IP addresses) want to make changes, they can propose them through the edit request mechanisim. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I considered doing this, but it seemed wrong to arbitrarily prevent IP editing just because it's an IP. Since confirmed users were also revert warring, full protection seemed required. Most of all, I'd like to see a resolution based in the consensus of all involved. If we can reach a consensus here that the IP then refuses to abide by, that would be a clear basis for semi-protection. causa sui (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok the 70.137 IPs all belong to me. I have proposed not to read the labels from the medicine bottles, but take the labels directly from the FDA website, as this is the only authoritative source. I agree with DMacks. As the label has changed over time FDA is the only one having the current revised and maintained version of this. As with laws, we have to cite the law. Secondary sources are not binding but just opinions. I do not see why semi-protection would be an advantage. 70.137.159.49 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Multiple IP editors are inserting and removing content from the article. The discussion on the talk page has not effected a cessation of edit waring on the article therefore restricting IP addresses is the best way to handle this war. It still allows you to propose changes (or encourages people to stand up and register for an account), but curtails the ability for IP hopers to go on a rampage.
The other IPs (non - 70.137) do not even show up as disputants. They have continuously reverted edits without discussion. I already said I agree with DMacks in the matter. Now if we can get the opinion of the others involved... 70.137.159.49 (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- If you can give me some diffs I'll add them to the list of disputants and notify them of the discussion. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Alprazolam resolution
JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
An issue concerning a particular incident involving the company and one of its former employees has been seen a defamatory because of the source in question being viral video sites, even when the videos being used as sources feature quotes that come from the parties involved in the dispute. Furthermore, the user has continuously threatened to block me from editing Wiki pages, even though I have seen no sufficient proof that the user has any authority to do such. Since there is no proof to who this user has implied himself to be, the conspiracy theories that came from the company that put out the video that began the controversy in question, and how some companies have edited Wiki articles to hide criticisms about them, I have suspected that this user might have a personal gain by keeping talk about the incident quiet and using the blocking threat as a scare tactic, though there is no way for me to confirm that one way or another. The edits I have provided were intended to be in good faith and to add what I thought was a critical incident in the company's history.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
MorbidThoughts has left comments about these edits in the language which suggests that he's an admin, yet no sufficient proof exists, to my knowledge, as to him having this power. I have suspicions that his actions are based on either bias towards the company or against the former employee. Either way, I do not suspect his actions are in good faith.
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
I have discussed this on both his talk page and on the JM Productions talk page, discussing possible tags that would be appropriate to add to such a section if there's a dispute over it. On both occasions, the tag suggestion has been completely ignored in favor of strict admin action, any talk was completely stonewalled, and a claim that the sources that were used were not sufficient and were deemed "gossip sites". The sites and videos used came from the parties involved in the incident (and the individual was formally employed with that company), which makes it clear that some consideration should be taken due to the persons telling the story.
- How do you think we can help?
A third party that can safely make a call as to possible tags that can be used. There have been no requests from Morbid to have any other party involved. Since there is dispute about his status as a user on Wikipedia, this should be addressed, as well. I would like to see a discussion amongst several users, at least, concerning the section instead of a rash decision based upon possible bias followed by idle threats.
Darkpower (talk) 01:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
- Just a note here. Since the disputed text involves living people, WP:BLP comes into play. Looking over the sources and the disputed text, none of the sources is what I would call a high-quality reliable source. I know this is porn, but even porn has good reliable sources that can be used to verify this stuff, and I just don't see these being used in this case. This is why good secondary sources like newspapers, journals, or books are better than simply citing video clips and stuff like that. Journalists have the time to research the details behind an incident, and can themselves help provide context and analysis. When your major source is a video of dubious provenance, with no context or analysis along with it, then Wikipedia really shouldn't be reporting on any "incident" supposedly shown in a video. If you want to say everything you keep adding to the article, find a newspaper/journal/magazine article (or source of equivalent reliability) that reports the level of detail you are. Simply citing a video isn't good enough, really. You need better sources. --Jayron32 02:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand the questionable nature that some viral videos tend to carry on this site, which is why I tried to take special care about adding them and making sure that the section took a NPOV side of things. This is why I suggested the tag solution: let the users decide. That could also lead to someone who has already found additional sources.
- And speaking of, I might have been able to come through with some additional sources, though they come in the form of internet sites of different sorts (some are reliable, though you take what you can get since most mainstream sites are just going to talk about the immorality of porn and never about the details). I was surprised what I found when I used The Google to search for this. This also proves my first theory correct: that this incident got a LOT of attention, and as such, might be worthwhile to mention. I'd have to check to see if these sources are just as viable, though I question still why a video of an interview of one of the two members involved in the incident is not enough proof that anything actually happened.
- And this also does not resolve the other half of my issue: the user's attitude towards this. No alternative to where the section can be discussed by anyone. He seemed to just do what he wanted without any care to the good faith of Wikipedia. I tried to add the section in good faith (and yes, I will be looking at trying to reinstate that section; I don't give up that easily, and hopefully new sources will be enough). His "do it and be blocked" attitude without even considering any other reasonable alternatives just strikes me as odd and suspicious.Darkpower (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- That's why I cited WP:BLP. With living persons, precaution must be taken to avoid even the appearence of being defamatory; WP:BLP is clear: with contested information about living persons, don't "tag and let the reader decide". We remove the information entirely, and don't report it at all, until the information can be clearly backed up with reliable sources. We don't take chances with this stuff, we don't "let the reader decide" when information which is potentially defamatory is in articles. Just leave it out unless and until good sources can be found. Please read WP:BLP, the guidance is in the lead section. --Jayron32 19:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
- As another neutral, I concur entirely with Jayron32, but would further caution that WP:GRAPEVINE says that the three revert rule does not apply to reverts of removed contentious BLP information. Unless the new sources are absolutely and unquestionably reliable - something I suspect will be difficult to achieve considering the subject material - then boldly reintroducing the material without first discussing the new proposed sources at the BLP noticeboard before the material is reintroduced will be taking a considerable risk. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- On the adminship/warning issue: if someone is doing something wrong, you don't have to be an admin in order to warn that person. I frequently warn people about bad behaviour and point out that if they persist they may be blocked and I'm not an admin. You need an admin to actually do the block, but if you are in the right about policy, there isn't an issue. Morbidthoughts has posted ordinary automated warnings to Darkpower's talk page. Just to make it clear, Morbidthoughts is not an admin. But the warnings he placed on your user page aren't a big deal. As for the BLP issues, as TransporterMan says, I'd suggest taking it to the BLP noticeboard. Porno-related BLP issues are a recurring issue. You might also want to ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography as I'm sure there are regulars there used to handling porno-BLP issues. I don't see any major civility or behaviour issues that need the attention of an admin here, and I hope that the WikiProject Pornography people can help sort the BLP/source use issues out. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
JM Productions and MorbidThoughts dispute resolution
Austrian business cycle theory
| Discussion has commenced on article talk page. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Guru Josh
| Proposed solution of linking to the Project's article and removing all the extra links |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Coffee Party USA
Dispute overview
- Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
The current version of the article in question makes little mention of any third party's perspective on the political movement's political orientation. I have made edits [13], [14] to the article to rectify the lack of third party perspective on Coffee Party USA but they've all been reverted by User:Xenophrenic who has gone on record repeating Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan (Coffee Party USA's self-published descriptions of itself as non-partisan can be found here: [15], [16]) thereby violating WP:NPOV by stating an opinion/uncontested assertions about Coffee Party USA as a fact. The user has gone on to further write that he/she has yet to see "any reliable source describe the Coffee Party as any one of these [progressive, liberal and pro-government] adjectives" even though sources from established news sources such as The Telegraph, Politico, Post The Washington post, CBS and The Atlantic Wire have all used such adjectives to describe Coffee Party USA.
Users involved
- Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)
Resolving the dispute
- Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?
Discussed on talk page, but we seem to have gotten nowhere.
- How do you think we can help?
Given the vested interest of user Xenophrenic in editing this article, assistance here on this matter would be appreciated.
Galafax (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Coffee Party USA discussion
Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Please either remove your request for a Third Opinion or remove this request. As it says in the instructions, above, "This is not the place to discuss disputes that are already under discussions in other forums." The Third Opinion project has similar guidelines on its FAQ page. Please choose one or the other, but not both. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, I overlooked that part when I was filing this dispute resolution request. As per this edit, I've removed the request for a third opinion.Galafax (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You neglected to notify Xenophrenic that you listed them as a disputant. I have remedied this for you. Hasteur (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
There's also a related ANI thread that may need to be considered. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps Galafax considered his reply to Xenophrenic here to mean that he gave notice? He remarked "Apologies where? Sorry, couldn't find the part where I would ever do I mean did that. But don't worry about the imaginary apologies the jokes on you as you couldn't even make the effort to show up on the dispute resolution page. As for the sources, I'm sure if you had any I mean better comprehension skills..." On the one hand, Galafax's account is only 48 hours old, so you'd expect a new editor might not understand the nuances of notifications. On the other hand, if you study the small number of edits he has made, he has brought up a lot of Wikipolicy cites, posting links in his arguments for things like WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:WEASEL, WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV, etc, as well as quickly resorting to multiple noticeboards. That makes it hard to figure out if he's a new editor who needs a little mentoring, or a returning editor who is now editing under the Galafax account. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Coffee Party USA resolution
Kristin Nelson
| No dispute, already listed at Editor Assistance, so not eligible here. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Death of Caylee Anthony, Missing white woman syndrome
| After having read the discussion for a while, I find there is a consensus here based on policy to allow inclusion of the Missing white woman syndrome wikilink in the See also section. Per the see also criteria, "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question." Arguments have been made below that this article at least somewhat relates to the Missing white woman syndrome, even if only just. Wikilinks don't require reliable sources in order to be added to an article. My personal opinion is that a brief addition into the second paragraph of the public and media reactions section would work better, but that's not the consensus here. Additionally, policies are a global consensus, and an extraordinarily strong local consensus would be required to overturn that. That sort of consensus is split here, but most arguments weighted in policy are in favour of allowing inclusion. Steven Zhang (talk) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
- ^ "Media criticizes Class Gift pressure". TheDartmouth.com. 2010-11-10. Retrieved 2011-07-24.
- ^ "Media criticizes Class Gift pressure". TheDartmouth.com. 2010-11-10. Retrieved 2011-07-24.
- ^ "Media criticizes Class Gift pressure". TheDartmouth.com. 2010-11-10. Retrieved 2011-07-24.