Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 55

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Charles Jaco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cole132132 (talk · contribs)
• McSly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute has been posted within the talk page, but I would like to say due to the history and biased nature of this I should seek further council. Today (11/16/2012) I posted on the article Charles Jaco:

" In an 1991 broadcast covering the Gulf War realeased to the public via the internet Jaco is seen laughing and joking on a fake set supposedly in Saudi Arabia, then we also see that Jaco is practicing for the live airing with background stages cutting in and out. Afterword we see a clip of the actual broadcast live with Jaco and another correspondent supposedly during a missile attack."

as well as a external link to the video. But not to long later it was undone and my explination for that was posted on the talk page:

"My article addition of the article was removed and labeld dubious as well as unreferenced when however it had much truth to it as you could see in external links there was a link to the video (perhaps I should have feautured it in references) . Also I never stated that this was actually forged I said "Possibly" so therefore I was not expressing my opinion. If anything I can assume this undo was clearly aimed at just ones illegtimate political and biased opinion to CNN."

I would like a resoulution for this as I belive that this article is being targeted becausse of a majoritys politcal opinion or just common childlishness.

Cole132132

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posting a talk page post (which I dont expect a response on).

How do you think we can help?

Coming to an agreement of some sort to repost what I've said for widending of public knowlede on the basis of theoretical grounds (even though there is a video).

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Charminar wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hoodedemperor (talk · contribs)
• User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Dispute overview

Dear Sir,

Please note under the Charminar Wikipedia some admins has added article which is not correct Example:Article Citiation No.11 first paragraph shows wrong information if you see the website source of the news. I removed the information about 10 times but its getting back by admins . So iam requesting you to please sort this issue and add the correct information to the article

Thanks, Syed

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have requested admin to please don't remove my edits but they are removing it continuesly.

How do you think we can help?

As Iam requesting you the page of Charminar wikipedia should show the information only about the charminar but not Bhagyalakshmi temple. And also they have wikipedia page of Bhagyalakshmi temple so let them edit there.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Global warming controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Cole132132 (talk · contribs)
• NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs)
• Vsmith (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unfortunatley my posts have been reverted several times out of unformal reasons, I would consider this vandalism. However I would like make this a smart and educated resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Trying to discuss on the talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Coming to an organized consensus.

The complaining party (Cole132132 (talk · contribs) is (dubiously) a new editor. Ordinarily they would be entitled to a great deal of WP:DONTBITE. However, earlier today this user already had experiential education with this DR process. The first time Cole13232 rushed here without meaningful talk page discussion was understandable for a newbie. Coming just hours later this equally frivolous and premature complaint reflects a battle ground mentality on his part. Instead of complaining here, Cole132132 should actually respond to the substance of the criticisms that have been posted at the article talk page. He is posting raw data (WP:OR violation), blogs, linkfarms, and articles on related but nonetheless off topic subjects. He has not replied to the substance of any of these criticisms (last I looked).

In closing, although Cole132132 claims to be new, you know what they say....

A. Ignore the BRD process once, shame on you (but we will teach you) B. Ignore the BRD process twice, shame on your battle ground mentality C. Ignore the BRD process three times, shame on admins for not slapping your wrist after the 2nd time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• La Luz del Mundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RidjalA (talk · contribs)
• Fordx12 (talk · contribs)
• RobertRosen (talk · contribs)
• Gwickwire (talk · contribs)
• Ajaxfiore (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the past few weeks, Fordx12 (along with another user who's now gone AWOL) has introduced thousands of bytes to La Luz del Mundo, and I've brought it to his attention that most of this information appears to lean towards the promotional side. Per the request of an outside third opinion, a user (RobertRosen) removed much of that content, which I feel was justified to conform to the non-promotional standards of Wikipedia.

However, one admin (Gwickwire) at the request of Fordx12 reverted RobertRosen's revision [1]. From my POV, this revert was unjustified, and hence feel that conforming to the 5 pillars, specifically that pages not be used as promotional platforms, supersede this admin's revert of RobertRosen.

In the past I've tried trimming down Fordx12's content to conform to the non-promotional purpose of Wikipedia, but the user filed an Rfc against me here [2] (This information contained in this Rfc might help to better understand the origins of our disputes.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We've had numerous extensive discussions, some unavoidable edit warring, and inquired 3O

How do you think we can help?

So the dispute is as follows: Is RobertRosen's trimmed down version better and easier to work with in improving La Luz del Mundo? (this version reduces content that leans towards the promotional side, RobertRosen cites WP:COATRACK). Or is Fordx12 (i.e. Gwickwire's reverted version) the better alternative? (this version includes all of the questionable content as is) Diff: [3]

I feel that the full version needs some major reduction, and would like some further insight. Is such elaborate content warranted for such a little known and obscure religious group? (for the record, Dormady and Fortuny are referenced 37 times; do a quick search for "Dormady" and "Fortuny" on La Luz del Mundo; sounds to me like sources are lacking and being used over-exhaustively. I should also mention that Dormady is a PhD dissertation, not an actual book, nor anything commercially published (it's publisher is ProQuest??))

The 3O request was regarding a dispute about on subsection between Ajaxfiore and RidjalA. RobertRosen proceeded to delete entire sections that were sourced. These sections are similar to that of those found on Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and others that I use as models. As far is the subject of the article being obscure, I have not heard of that being an issue. Take these two little known groups as an example Iglesia ni Cristo, Two by Twos. I panicked upon seeing the section blanking and RidjalA refering to RobertRosen as an admin here [4] So I contacted one editor, then the teahouse and then asked for admin assitance to see what I should do. This led to me seeking advice on my editing practices as can be seen here [5]. I want to leave past disputes behind. So I have invited outside editors to help vet the article here [6]. I believe that we should have various editors vet and tweek that article, not indiscriminately delete entire sections. I see nothing that is in the LLDM article that isn't in the articles I mentioned here. Are they also promotional? The Iglesia Ni Cristo article has info on its architecture and detailed history/beliefs sections. The Two by Twos are similar. The Witnesses article has a persecution section. All of them have detailed history sections. Witnesses infobox contains Watchtower numbers for its data. Is that promotional? As for my past actions, RidjalA's "trimmings" involved deleting sourced content. There was an issue that started in late September about close paraphrasing issues which were resoled over time (RidjalA did not provide me with problematic sentences and when he did, several were not close paraphrasing). Here is my Teahouse post [7]. I didn't ask the editor to do anything, I asked for advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordx12 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OBJECTION: Per me, this event is not only about content, but also the conduct of 2 editors and persistent edit-warring, so this may not be the appropriate forum. It is also not a small content dispute, as its half the article and 43,000+ bytes.

FACTS: I entered as a neutral editor to offer WP:3O (I never claimed to be an admin). I left a message on page talk asking all combatants to precisely state their lis. I informed the 2 editors (who I thought were warring) on their talk pages. I then learnt of a RFC filed by 1 Fordx12 against the other RidjalA. I read it thoroughly and advised them to bring their dispute back to the article's talk page to resolve with a neutral editor - me. In view of the RFC it was clear I would not be acting as 3O. Fordx12 agreed. I also noted there were SPAs on the page. Sysop John Carter later agreed with me, on the unwarranted RFC & also the serious SPA concerns. 2 editors gave their opinion. I did not need the 3rd's as it was on the RFC page. I made it clear that in view of SPA issues I would WP:BOLDly clean the article. By then I had researched the article subject & talk history thoroughly. I rigorously trimmed the article to half its size by numerous & individual sub-section wise edits along with edit summaries for the major controversies/blankings. Hence to say I removed a very large chunk is false. I buzz-cut the article of much of its WP:SOAP (it is an advertisement for a fringe cult masquerading as an article based on unreliable blogs, EL's, Spanish Language/dubious/SPS and by misquoting primary (though scholarly) sources like Dormady's Ph.d thesis) and I gave the warring editors a cleaner base to rebuild the article. All the 4 editors (including myself) were always talking and baby steps had started to put in non-disruptive tiny sourced edits which WP:BRD needs. The spamming SPA Fordx12 felt pincered, he went to Teahouse & convinced Gwickwire to (exceed Teahouse's advisory mandate and) revert all my individual edits by a single one (saying I had removed well sourced material). Gwickwire admittedly [8] failed to a) comprehend what I had done, or b)investigate the extent of the edit-warring by existing WP:COIed SPAs, c)appreciate that the material I trimmed was i)to enable the page to be rebuilt by warring editors through consensus ii)to remove wholesale puffery/OR/BLP allegations/NPOV etc iii) all editors were already talking extensively. In short Gwickwire reverted hastily and disruptively and has continued to disruptively revert by abandoning all pretensions to neutrality by openly siding with the non-RS promoting [9] editor Fordx12 who systematically [10] coordinated tag-teaming and edit-warring against the other editor (including by filing an unwarranted Rfc to browbeat RidjalA from editing). For comparison, a similar 3O+buzz-cut I did at English Standard Version is doing just fine and 4 editors collaborated to trim it by 70%. [User:RobertRosen|RobertRosen]] (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

A user came to me on WP:TEAHOUSE asking for help on why his content was deleted. I went and looked at it, and an editor had removed a very large chunk, I believe over half of the article, that was sourced well and relevant. I then proceeded to revert, and we all got into a discussion. I suggested this as a way for us to get a next opinion. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RidjalA and I had a dispute concerning the controversy section in the article. The last thing we disputed about before RobertRosen intervened was that I had removed some sentences due to copyright violations, but RidjalA refused to rewrite it saying that the source "states it best, and I [RidjalA] cannot do it justice if I were to rewrite it." I then rewrote the section being disputed to conform to the LA Times see [11] [12]. RidjalA also requested a third opinion on a source we had been arguing about, despite the fact that there was already a request for comment on the source. Anyway, RobertRosen came in as a third opinion and told us to bring a request for user comment on RidjalA to the talk page. The rfc was due to concerns of article ownership, personal attacks, etc. I attended to RobertRosen's request hoping that he would do some mediation. After Fordx12 and I had responded to RobertRosen (and before RidjalA had), RobertRosen blatantly accused me of being an SPA and a sockpuppet, and went on to delete over half the article, without prior discussion; also his edit summaries had redlinks. He did nothing to help us and instead launched personal attacks against me, and deleted sourced material without valid reasons. I protested against this, but RidjalA erased my protest claiming I was making personal attacks [13]. I reverted this edit only to be accused of being an SPA duck by RobertRosen, who also told me to swim away. Then RobertRosen's edits were reverted by gwickwire, and that was reverted by RidjalA, then again by gwickwire, then by RobertRosen, then by gwickwire, then by RobertRosen, and finally by me [14]. We have now started working from there and have made some progress[15][16][17][18], although RobertRosen has bombarded the page with tags and questioned the factual accuracy of the article simply because he can't read Spanish, and has continued to make personal attacks against editors. Ajaxfiore (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: As is made clear on his userpage, gwickwire is not an admin. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by John Carter

I started to go through the various databanks available to me last night and found that there has in fact been rather a lot of material printed about this group, although a lot of it is in Spanish that I can't read. I have started to forward material to my e-mail from these databanks and am looking to forward the material, once collected, to anyone interested. The question about the "promotional" material is a good one, although it would be useful to know who the sources were for that promotional material. At this point, maybe, if some of those involved are interested, it might be best to maybe hold off a bit until I can go through and forward all the databank and maybe other published material I and others can find, and then return to discussion on the article talk page about what to include and how much weight to give it, as well as possibly what material to be added to other articles related to the topic. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I can read Spanish: if you email the material to me, I can give my assessment. It looks to me like the dispute boils down to (1) whether or not too much promotional information is included in the "large" version of the article; and (2) how much detail can/should be in the Controversies section. A key tool here is the WP:Secondary source guidance in the WP:No original research policy. That guidance suggests that the article should be based primarily on sources published/written by persons not affiliated with the church. Sources written by members of the church, particularly church authorities (which are, in this context, primary sources) should be avoided. Primary sources can be used for specific facts about church doctrine & church statistics, but in all cases, independent secondary sources are preferred. Regarding the Controversies section, the essay WP:Criticism is instructive. It suggests that sections dedicated to negative information are discouraged, and instead the sections should be topical (if possible) and include both positive and negative information about a given incident/viewpoint/behavior. --Noleander (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment based on RobertRosen's opening comment. The LLDM church is not referred to as a "fringe cult" outside of one scholarly source that I am aware of. And there are plenty of secondary sources that talk about the church as a church. The leading expert of LLDM, Patricia Fortuny, doesn't call it that and in her paper "Origins, Development and Perspectives of La Luz del Mundo Church" even contrasts the church with what she calls "destructive cults." I would like to ask about the use of Watchtower literature in the Jehovah's Witnesses article, labeled as a GA class article, if that is a good model for this article? For those that may not know, the Watchtower is an organization run by and for Jehovah's Witnesses. Since church publications are used extensively there, could LLDM publications be used, backed up by significant secondary sources, in the LLDM article as well? The issue between using the "large" or the "small" version of the article also includes the level of detail an article ought to have for information about a religion's beliefs, history, etc... Anyway, I hope that can be made evident by the sources provided by John Carter. I agree that sections dedicated to negative information should be discouraged and the sections should be topical with both positive and negative information. As mentioned or implied before, I am for working on the "large" version of the article and for the emulation of articles like Jehovah's Witnesses which are highly detailed (in fact those types of articles have spun of very detailed subpages). Fordx12 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your inquiry about the use of Watchtower as a source for the Jehova's Witnesses article: At a quick glance, it looks like the article is using that source correctly. Here is an sentence from that article that is uses Watchtower as a citation: "The Society also teaches that members of the Governing Body are helped by the holy spirit to discern "deep truths", which are then considered by the entire Governing Body before it makes doctrinal decisions." That is a proper usage: the church's own document is being used as a source to describe their belief system. Contrast that with analysis of the church's relationship to external entities, or making subjective assessments about the church's impact - that is when the church's own publications are discouraged as sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A brief note on the history of the article

• AjaxFiore - a primary contributor to the article; alleged to be a bit on the apologetic side
• Fordx12 - a primary contributor to the article; alleged to be a bit on the apologetic side
• RidjalA - a primary contributor to the article; alleged to be a bit on the critical side
• RobertRosen - recent contributor who got involved via 3O and removed large amounts of material due to perceived bloat/promotion
• Gwickwire - uninvolved editor: made a single edit: reverted RobertRosen's deletions, feeling that the material was properly sourced.
• John Carter - uninvolved editor, searching for sources to use as a basis for making decisions. A voice of sanity  :-)

The above bullet points are just informal notes to try to understand the history of how this case got to DRN. Feel free to amend as desired (but please add text at the end, don't remove). Within the DRN case, we focus solely on content issues, not behavior issues. Within DRN there is no need to discuss single-purpose account allegations, or bias allegations. All discussions within DRN should focus entirely on sourcing & how it comports with WP policies. I think from this point forward, the DRN case should look at specific sources, identify which meet the WP:Reliable source criteria; and see if the WP:UNDUE policy is being violated by too much "positive" or too much "negative" information. --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@RobertRosen, Gwickwire, and John Carter: I, like Noleander, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I have a proposal. I would like to suggest that there may have been too many chefs in this kitchen, with RobertRosen, Gwickwire, and John Carter all trying to do what amounts to dispute resolution on this article. The purpose of dispute resolution is to decrease drama, not increase it, so I would like to suggest that Gwickwire and RobertRosen withdraw from editing and discussing the article and also from involvement in this discussion, and that John Carter strictly limit his involvement to searching for sources without (and I don't mean to suggest that he as done what I'm about to say up until now; I don't know and haven't looked) advocating for the ones he finds or against others asserted by other editors. Noleander is a very skilled and resourceful dispute resolutionist and is wholly neutral in this matter. Again, that's not to suggest that Robert, Gwick, and John are not skillful or resourceful, but said only to vouch for Nol and his abilities, which include the language skills needed here. I'm not suggesting topic bans or anything which smacks of disapproval or sanctions, but merely a principled withdrawal for the sake of the encyclopedia. Let's let this get back to the three real disputants and one highly capable mediator, what do you say? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

@Noleander Thank you for your answer. I agree with TransporterMan's assessment. Fordx12 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to this, as I didn't even want to be this involved at all. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a status update: I have just discovered that RobertRosen has been indefinitely blocked and two unblock requests have been denied. There is a third request pending, but I rather strongly doubt that it will be granted. It is unlikely that he will be able to accept or reject the proposal I made above. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, moving forward: It looks like there are two key issues:

1. Is there too much promotional material? If so, should it be removed? or revised based on better (secondary) sources?
2. Is the material within the Controversies section presented in a way that violates the WP:NPOV policy? If so, how can it be improved?

Could the parties respond (below) to these issues by providing specific examples of what could be improved? Also, feel free to add more issues if you think they are important. --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some copy editing. Regarding the Controversy section there has also been some dispute as to what constitutes controversy and what constitutes criticism. I had previously separated the Controversy section into separate Criticism and Controversy sections. If we define Controversy as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate", we note that the Schism of 1942 and the Silver Wolf Ranch sections do not belong under Controversy. The former was more like an internal conflict that was short lived and received attention only from a relatively unknown struggling newspaper. The latter consisted of a curious reporter inquiring about a mysterious ranch. The other two sections did cause much media uproar in the late 90s though.

I don't think there is much promotional material. We have been making some progress as I stated in my opening comments. John Carter recently provided some sources[19] that could be included. Ajaxfiore (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that there is some good conversation happening on the article's talk page and - as Ajaxfiore points out - J. Carter recently supplied some good source material. I wonder if we should just close this DRN case and move the discussion to the talk page. If the talk page does not work out, we can always start a new DRN cases. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like all parties are working in the article talk page now. So I'll close this DRN case. --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Murder of Shaima Alawadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• YvelinesFrance (talk · contribs)
• Roscelese (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The murder (in the article) was made to look like a xenophobic hate crime. However, all the evidence suggests this was just a cover up and the actual murderer was the husband himself who has now been arrested.

So this race-baiting comment: "The murder was compared to the shooting of Trayvon Martin that had taken place less than a month earlier. The hoodie that Martin was wearing was said to feed into racial profiling that led an armed civilian to shoot the unarmed teenager; Alawadi's hijab was similarly said to have marked her as Muslim to the person who murdered her.[4]" does not belong in the article.

The comparison with Trayvon Martin is ludicrous and inflammatory. It should be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to reason with her but she will have none of it, and would rather make threats to me on my talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By having outside users decide for themselves.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Adware (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Russell E (talk · contribs)
• many others (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

All reliable sources I can find describe "adware" along the lines of software that displays advertising, potentially to raise revenue for the organization that produces the software. Judging by editor comment on Talk:Ubuntu (operating system), many editors consider "adware" to be a pejorative term. For this reason, even though Ubuntu displays ads to raise revenue, they will not allow Ubuntu to be described factually as adware -- it is only being allowed in terms of direct quotes of attributed, referenced notable opinion.

Editors on Talk:Adware feel that because no reliable sources can be found to show that "adware" is a pejorative term, the entry may not make any factual claim about adware being unwanted or malicious or the term being pejorative. They also feel that for this reason, having "adware" as the article title is correct, because that is the commonly used term for this class as software.

I want to link the Ubuntu (operating system) entry with the Adware entry, in the interests of a good encyclopedia. Users reading the Ubuntu entry should be able to click to find out more about that class of software which displays ads in its user interface (for revenue purposes). Linking to a generic advertising entry is a failure to provide the user with the best available contextually linked information. For this to happen, one or both sides need to move on their positions. I am not advocating a particular way for this to take place.

This is not a "dispute" in a conventional sense. Opposing positions are being made on separate Talk pages and editors on both pages just seem to want me to go away so they can keep their trenches separate. I'm not attached to a particular resolution (initially I was WP:BOLD by labelling Ubuntu adware, but now I take an agnostic position) except to say that linking to a generic article is a poor outcome for the encyclopedia.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Ongoing discussion on two talk pages, two RFCs and attempt to raise on two Village Pump sub-pages.

How do you think we can help?

Input is needed from people who have no emotional investment in the articles, who aren't approaching the problem from the point of view of one of the two pages, and preferably who can see the broader policy implications to either address similar situations that are bound to arise, or point out how existing policy already addresses such situations.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Glossary of equestrian terms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aeusoes1 (talk · contribs)
• Montanabw (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been going through articles trying to remove the phrase "term used to describe" whenever I can, as it is typically poor writing. Whenever I do so at horse-related articles, I tend to butt heads with User:Montanabw (this dispute is thus not completely contained there, but it is most salient at this particular article). While there was a back-and-forth of edits between us at glossary of equestrian terms, Montanabw has not fully articulated the problem he has with my edits, simply saying that there was lost "nuance" that I don't understand as someone unfamiliar with horses. I have asked for a point-by-point elaboration of this most recent partial rv at the article and Montanabw has refused, instead choosing to denigrate my efforts as obsessive and arrogant. Keep in mind that this is mostly simple copyediting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried discussing the matter (the conversation is now deleted) at Montanabw's talk page. We also had a brief exchange at my talk page before he implied that he would provide a point-by-point breakdown of his most recent edits at the article talk page if I started a discussion there. He has so far failed to do so.

How do you think we can help?

In addition to providing some additional perspectives to the dispute, it would be nice if others could help guide Montanabw from his current approach of mockery and condescension to one of actually discussing the merits of edits. I'm actually disappointed that someone who's been here so long should seemingly have so little clue about negotiation, discussion, and persuasion.

The basic dispute is seen at these two discussions on each of our talk pages [20] and [21]. Aeusoes has NOT "discussed" this issue on the glossary article's talk page; s/he merely summed up his views there, asking others to weigh in, and no one has done so. I did not agree to and will not "provide a point-by-point breakdown" with this editor because s/he tends to twist my words to mean something I did not intend, and behaves as if "negotiation" means I must agree with everything s/he has to say. This user's edits to SOME articles are sometimes helpful, but at the glossary and a couple other places Aeusoes went too far and changed a direct quote [22], altered nuance [23], [24], [25], and once even flipped a phrase to mean the very opposite. (can't find diff now) And yes, I think this user does have an obsession with removing the phrase "term used to describe" from every article in wikipedia, (note contribs) or even just the word "describe". I think this is an irrelevant dispute over style and a complete waste of everyone's time, thus should be declined. Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. I am opening this up for discussion. I always like to start these cases by asking everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading the linked discussion, and I would like to set a couple of ground rules. First, I noticed some personal comments. Please stop doing that. Focus on article content and not on user conduct. Second, I would like both of you to link to two to four edits from the other that you think best demonstrate a poor choice about content. Choose wisely, because I plan on focusing on those edits as a springboard for discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the main edit under dispute is this reversion by Montanabw. In my talk page, I posted a point-by-point breakdown of the areas of this edit that I felt required explanation, and I will repeat it here. Keep in mind that Montanabw has maintained that this is not a blanket revert. So, as far as I can tell, (s)he stands by each of these changes.

1. "includes terms for conformation flaws" was changed back to "includes terms that describe conformation flaws" though terms don't normally describe things.
2. The term bone was reverted back from being a term "used in evaluating the quality of certain skeletal structures" to being a term "to describe the quality of certain skeletal structures" even though the term itself is not a describer of such quality ("good" and "bad" fulfill that role).
3. "The circumference of the leg below the knee or hock, which helps determine a horse's weight-carrying ability" was reverted back to "Technical terminology referencing the size and density of bone of the lower leg, which helps determine the weight carrying ability of a horse" even though this is not quite what the source cited says ("A measurement taken around the leg below the knee or hock as an indication of a horse's projected ability to carry weight without injurious consequences.") and even though it provides a redundant link to technical terminology
4. "'Flat' bone is a positive feature where..." and "'Tied-in' bone is the negative characteristic of..." were reverted back to "'Flat' bone describes a positive feature where..." and "'Tied-in' bone describes the negative characteristic of..." even though, as I said above and elsewhere, describes wouldn't be the right term anyway.
5. "Originally an unbroken feral horse. Now refers to the horse in the rodeo bronc riding events, where the horse tries to buck a rider off, as well as any undisciplined horse, especially one that bucks." was reverted back to "Originally an unbroken feral horse, now primarily a word for the horses used in rodeo bronc riding events, where the horse tries to buck off a rider. May describe any undisciplined horse, especially one that bucks."
6. The statements that the term pony "may refer to small horses that retain a pony phenotype of relatively short height" and "may also refer to an adult horse of any breed of 14.2, 14.1, or 14 hands or less..." were reverted back to "may be used to define small horses that retain a pony phenotype of relatively short height" and "may also be used for an adult horse of any breed of 14.2, 14.1, or 14 hands or less" respectively." In the first instance, it doesn't make sense that a term would be used to define something (that may be even worse than describe); in the second instance, simply saying "used" is a little confusing, since a reader may stumble through the sentence from mistakenly thinking that the actual pony may be used for something, rather than the term.

— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Aeusoes1's rapid editing of articles to remove a pet peeve phrase is problematic (see WP:MEATBOT). MontanaBMW has already documented examples, such as the unnecessary and confusing removal of a quote of a complete sentence to an awkward partial quote and subtlety alternating the meaning of terms in the glossary. Reviewing their contributions, in Point particle [26] their edit changed meaning (a point particle may have other properties besides mass, such as charge). Rather than a nearly robot like removal of certain phrases, they should slow down and ensure that removal and simplification of words does change meaning. NE Ent 13:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Editor has replied NE Ent 14:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you've deleted my response on your talk page out of an interest to keep the issue contained to one public forum; I'm willing to discuss my own editing conduct, but I don't want to go against the DRV's ground rule. I'll wait for Guy Macon to weigh in as to the best place for such a discussion. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

While you are both free to continue any talk page discussions any way you wish, many editors prefer to put such discussions on hold by simply not responding on the talk pages until the DRN case is closed. This is purely your choice either way.

We here at DRN have found that focusing on article content and delaying any discussion of user conduct until later works best. It often turns out that solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. If it doesn't, I will refer you to the right place to address user conduct issues when I close this case.

As for "already documented examples", and the link to the talk page discussion, I have read them all but for the purposes of this case I am going to ignore them. You both need to make your argument here.

The diffs listed above are:

Diff1

Diff2

Diff2

I am going to start with analyzing the second diff listed above because it is shorter. This does not any any way imply that I am favoring one side -- we have to start somewhere.

Before we proceed, are you both sure that these are the diffs that best show your positions? You can add a couple more diffs if needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about best showing my position; that second diff is an edit on another article that has been subsequently subject to a semi-partial revert that I don't really disagree with, given the reverting editor's above rationale. A better diff would be this one that came subsequent to diff1 and is the most recent edit I've made to the equestrian terms article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor - I'm responding to a request on the DRN talk page for input on this DRN case. I've looked over the diffs listed above, and I think there is a clear distinction to be found in the two contrasting approaches: one approach is more verbose and clumsy, and the other is tighter and more lexicographic. Specifically, glossary entries should avoid the following words or phrases: "describes", "defines" or "used for". Such phrases are redundant since the context is a glossary, and it is understood that the texts are definitions. The diffs also show a dispute on "that" vs "which"; "that" is correct, since it means the characteristic is definitive (vs "which" simply means it is incidental). --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Montanabw (NE: I WISH I had a BMW, lol). I first want to make one thing very clear: I have NO OBJECTION to any good edit that makes something tighter, better-worded, or more accurate. I also avoid the whole "which/that" discussion, if someone wants to fix a misuse, fine with me, go fix it. I do have objections to edits that are so stripped down as to be over-simplistic, remove fluid prose and replace it with a clunky parenthetical, change a nuanced meaning, alter phrasing of a definition that may be a term of art (technical terminology if you will), or where changing a word, even if a grammatically justifiable change, might cause a problem. I do not think I need to point to the many horse-related articles where Aeusoes simply removed "term used to describe" from an article where it did no harm, made other small changes to tighten the prose, and I agreed this was helpful and simply left it be. So to that extent, I acknowledge that many of his/her edits were helpful in many articles. But in a few cases, notably the glossary, and a couple other places, mucking about with definitions often altered them with no understanding of the concept which was being defined. To take an unrelated example, in law, the word "shall" has a specific meaning supported by a great deal of case law, change it to "will" and all of a sudden, you have a whole different situation, even though to the layperson the words may appear synonymous. Here, to "describe" is not the same thing as to "refer" and a few apparently "redundant" phrases may help a reader better understand a definition, may have been part of an official definition, or otherwise are a common enough part of a definition that removing them could venture a bit into WP:SYNTH territory. For the benefit of Guy Macon, here are just a few of my specific examples:

• This edit changed a direct quote from the national rulebook, true, it merely shortened it to remove "term used to describe", but given the concept, which is a very complicated one, it seems like a good idea to keep the complete sentence so as to accurately convey whatever the national organization wanted.
• This edit should be self-explanatory as a hasty edit with words omitted, but changed meaning by adding the label "generic" to something that wasn't generic at all.
• Here, a change was made, clearly not understanding that the term is a colloquialism.

As for the glossary, I think the most relevant diff is this one which reflects the diffs between Aeusoes' last edit and the final edit I made after I had a bit of time to reread the changes and re-reviewed source material. I will address a couple points, but I am not going to deal with the point by point demands of Aeusoes, as I don't think the sky will fall is someone says "describe" or "define" instead of "use' or "refer." I simply think some of this is a mere a style preference, really not worth a whole DRN, certainly not a MOS issue, and I think it is not the end of the world if we sometimes add a few "filler" words to create text that flows instead of a bare-bones approach that chops phrases until muscle is removed along with fat. The two places where I had the greatest concerns were the general replacing of the word "describe" with "refer", such in the conformation explanation, where it did change nuance, and changes to the definition of "bone" The definition of "bone" is a complex one within the horse world, and the citation goes only to one very simplistic definition, the full definition is more complex (ponies, for example, can have good bone with a small leg circumference, measurement alone is not dispositive of strength, ratio is involved, as is, to some degree, internal density). I think what happened is that the definition may have been split into two parts after it was originally written and the current cite added, the Edwards cite in the other part of the definition may need to be added to def one, as it might be what contains the rest of the nuance. But the point is that it is not a real good idea to go mucking around with definitions without both access to source material AND an understanding of what you are talking about. Montanabw^(talk) 23:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:MEATBOT says "Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they don't sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity".

Looking at the editing history for Aeusoes1, I see edits coming at a rapid rate:

15:29, 15 November 2012
15:29, 15 November 2012
15:28, 15 November 2012
15:28, 15 November 2012
15:27, 15 November 2012
15:27, 15 November 2012

14:48, 14 November 2012
14:48, 14 November 2012
14:48, 14 November 2012
14:48, 14 November 2012

00:43, 13 November 2012
00:42, 13 November 2012
00:42, 13 November 2012 <-- We will be looking at this one below.
00:41, 13 November 2012
00:39, 13 November 2012
00:38, 13 November 2012
00:37, 13 November 2012
00:36, 13 November 2012
00:36, 13 November 2012

14:42, 12 November 2012
14:42, 12 November 2012
14:41, 12 November 2012
14:40, 12 November 2012
14:40, 12 November 2012
14:40, 12 November 2012

01:20, 11 November 2012
01:19, 11 November 2012
01:19, 11 November 2012
01:19, 11 November 2012
01:18, 11 November 2012

03:33, 2 November 2012
03:32, 2 November 2012
03:32, 2 November 2012
03:32, 2 November 2012
03:31, 2 November 2012
03:30, 2 November 2012
03:30, 2 November 2012
03:30, 2 November 2012

That's two to four edits per minute, including finding the next page to edit. So Aeusoes1 is clearly acting as a WP:MEATBOT. Note that there is nothing wrong with editing as a meatbot if you are careful.

Clearly Aeusoes1 is spending a little time on each edit (I have seen other editors who hit 10 or 12 per minute), but not a lot of time; 10 to 30 seconds each. I doubt if that leaves enough time to read the entire paragraph, and it certainly isn't enough time to check a source.

So, is Aeusoes1 being sufficiently careful? In the case of this edit, I don't think he was. The fact that it was inside quote marks and followed by a citation should have been a red flag. You really cannot determine that the first part of a quote is "fluff" without checking the source and seeing it in context.

On the other hand, it is true that "...term used to describe..." is usually a sign of wordy editing and can be trimmed down, and Aeusoes1 is showing a reasonable amount of care, as evidenced by the fact that his edits vary according to context. I am also guessing that the gaps in the editing history are where he looks at page or two, decides it is OK as is, and moves on. Also, he edits a lot of pages and sees very little opposition to his edits. Overall, he is improving the encyclopedia. We do need editors who make large numbers of small improvements, not just editors who make a few big improvements.

Given the above, I would like to propose the following compromise:

• Aeusoes1 can continue his edits, but should slow down a bit and aim for one or occasionally two edits per minute.

• Unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise, Aeusoes1 should defer to the editors who have been spending time editing and discussing the page. If someone who is active on a page reverts one of the meatbot edits, Aeusoes1 should, as a rule, accept that decision and move on. Wikipedia would benefit more from Aeusoes1 moving on and (carefully) editing other pages where there is no opposition than it would benefit from him spending time disputing a minor wording change. If Aeusoes1 strongly feels that one of his edit should stay, he should present his case on the article talk page and seek consensus.

• NOTE: The above does not include the case of someone going through Aeusoes1's edit history and reverting him on multiple pages where the reverting editor has no history. In that case, Aeusoes1 should temporarily stop mass editing, start a civil discussion on that user's talk page, and if needed go to dispute resolution.

• The editors who are involved in equestrian topics should avoid blindly reverting Aeusoes1 and should consider whether some third phrasing would be better than either version, but should feel free to revert (once - see WP:BRD) if in their considered opinion the old version was superior.

I am open to suggested modification of the above compromise proposal, or, if it is acceptable, please indicate that you agree. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Agree as I believe this is precisely the approach I have taken, in most cases where I have reverted Aeusoes, I have usually taken the time to review Aeusoes' edits, sometimes inserting a third phrasing and sometimes keeping the more useful bits, though if many changes were made, it is more efficient for me to make these fixes by reverting first and then selectively returning the useful changes rather than the other way around. Montanabw^(talk) 22:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

A little bit about my process: I typically will open up ten or more articles in my browser at a time and even hit the edit button in all of them before I actually start going through them. Most articles with the phrase "term used to describe" (my current search term) have it only once so that removing it is a very cut-and-dry procedure that doesn't require me to read the entire paragraph. Cases where it's more complicated or where I'm not sure if it's so cut and dry get more attention (see, for example, the five minutes it took me to edit tissue (biology)). Even this doesn't take that much time (as I recall, I was cooking at the same time I was making that edit). I am able to quickly read the appropriate part of the articles and edit accordingly.

I admit that I make mistakes, even mistakes from carelessness, but considering how seldom this is, slowing down as you suggest seems like it would only serve to quiet the fears of people who look at how rapid my edits are, as you have done. More importantly, careless mistakes aren't even what's at issue with the equestrian terms article.

I stand by my edit at impulsion (horse). My shortening of the quote was deliberate and I would do it again if doing so wouldn't constitute edit warring (given Montanabw's opposition, it would). I agree in principal that checking sources is often important when changing wording, but commonsense judgment is also important. In the case of impulsion, although I haven't viewed the source, I can indeed tell that the first part is fluff "without checking the source and seeing it in context" because there's no context where "term used to describe" wouldn't be fluff.

I want to note that I have no problem with Montanabw's editing behavior and don't mind it when they do a blanket revert followed by a more deliberate edit based on my own. I think that's been more constructive (particularly at other horse-related pages I've edited) than simple reverting. Going to the article talk page when there is opposition or conflict has been my typical m.o. In the case of the equestrian terms article, I instead went to Montanabw's talk page because the issue went across several articles and I felt that the opposition was primarily or exclusively with Montanabw. I can see in retrospect that going to the article talk page would've been better, but only because Montanabw has deleted my posts and banned me from their talk page, disrupting the conversation in ways they could not in the article talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The proposals made in the compromise above seem to be aimed at behavioral issues which, in general, are not within the purview of the DRN process. This DRN case would be more effective if it took some specific edits and weight the merit of each edit. For instance, there may be two editors involved in a dispute, A and B, and A may conduct themselves in an irrational manner, and B may be civil and calm, yet A's edits may be the best for the encyclopedia. (This A/B example is just to illustrate my point; I'm not suggesting that this DRN case follows that scenario). Behavioral issues may be relevant in an indirect way, but we should still be focusing on specific edits and deciding if the edits are appropriate or not. --Noleander (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, it appears that we are not going to be able to resolve the dispute here. I would like both of you to take a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and tell me where you think you are and what the next step should be. Once we agree on where to take this next, I will close this as being a failed attempt at dispute resolution

Of course I would love to have someone prove me wrong by either accepting my compromise of proposing another compromise and getting everyone to agree with it. Every time two editors settle a dispute between them an angel gets its wings... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want you to think I'm criticizing you as a DRV, but I'm a little confused. You said that we should focus on article content, rather than user conduct and began the process by getting from Montanabw and myself diffs that we felt represented what we felt were strong and weak edits so that you could analyze them. I understood that to be a starting point but, other than the comment from the uninvolved editor, the discussion immediately turned to user conduct. As you can see from the comments regarding your proposed compromise, what you've proposed is basically what we've been doing already (with the exception that I don't typically move on when reverted) and it doesn't address the issue that prompted me to come to the DRN in the first place: I would like to discuss the merits of the edits and had hoped this would be a medium to facilitate that process.

Montanabw has even started to do so (immediately above). They have answered a question I asked two weeks ago, basically addressing point 3 above about "bone." They have also begun discussing their preference for "describe"; I would like to continue this discussion, but I sense that Montanabw doesn't wish to discuss it as they say they are not going to deal with the point-by-point "demands" that I've itemized here and elsewhere. Past instances of this sort of discussion have broken down because Montanabw takes my scrutiny of their arguments as being argumentative, arrogant, or even condescending.

I don't know what the next step is. On the one hand, formal mediation would really facilitate the discussion of the edits, but they're really simple copyediting issues and the source of the problem is this personality conflict between myself and Montanabw. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here at DRN we try to mediate an agreement between the disputing parties. While a volunteer may express an opinion as to who is right, that opinion carries no special weight, and I often choose not to weigh in on who I think is right. (Unless one side is clearly violating a Wikipedia policy, of course, but that is not the case here.) I have not expressed my opinion as to who is right, nor do I believe that my expressing my opinion will settle the dispute.

What I try to do is to deal with the situation as it stands. You have told me that you are not willing to defer to the judgement of the editors who have spent a lot of time discussing the contents of a page. I am not here to say that your decision is right or wrong. My only response is to ask you if you are sure and to inform the other party that they can't make you accept that compromise. Likewise, Montanabw has indicated that he is not willing to go through the "point-by-point breakdown" that you requested. I am not here to say that his decision is right or wrong. My only response is to ask you him if he is sure and to inform you that you can't make him go down a path that he believes will be fruitless.

Which bring us back to the guide for participants at the top of this page, which says, in part;

"What this noticeboard is:"

"It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction."

"What this noticeboard is not:"

"It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy."

It has become clear to me that this dispute will not be resolved here. I am waiting for Montanabw's input, and then, after a short discussion about where to go next, I am going to send you both to the next step in dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Deferring to the judgment of other editors is fine, particularly with issues of content. I think that's something that I try to do with discussion rather than revert-acquiescence because I know there are times when people have reverted for other reasons (in which case I try to accommodate such reasons) or would only take a little bit of convincing in order to accept my changes. You can see I even did that with Montanabw at Talk:Quittor and, eventually, with others at Talk:Counterculture.

Montanabw has said here that the other points I've brought up are merely stylistic. Is it reasonable to believe that they will accept if I restore my edits? If not, and if they aren't willing to do a point-by-point breakdown, could they agree to a more general discussion about the merits of refer vs. describe? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Montanabw? Do we have the beginnings of a compromise that is acceptable to all here? In addition, can we all agree to let bygones be bygones and make a fresh start, leaving aside any previous comments? I really do think that a green "resolved" case status looks much nicer than a red "failed" one... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw has not edited Wikipedia since the 16th, so I am going to give him some more time on the assumption that that pesky real world is keeping him busy. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I was offline over the weekend. I am not going to accept a wholesale restoration of Aeusoes' edits, obviously. I outlined my position above quite clearly; fix which/that, I don't care, fine. Leave "bone" alone, and let go of removing "describe" from the article because I've already heard the "describe/refer" argument ad nauseum, I understand the point being made, but I simply don't agree with it in this particular context. Other cleanup was accepted already, I'm fine with actual tightening of prose, but when there is a style issue, I think it reasonable that Aeusoes just drop the stick and back away from the ead horse (pun intended). Further, as seen at the talk page diff, two other people, both experienced and respected WPEQ editors, have already tried to explain this issue with the glossary to Aeusoes, to no avail. I have no interest in taking this issue any farther, I am willing to make a fresh start and let bygones be bygones, with Aeuosoes leaving the glossary as is, with the possible exception of fixing the that/which issue (he's right about that) and if there are issues other than the "bone" definition and the "describe/refer" issue, we can talk. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like the describe/refer issue is going to come up again if we don't square it away. The impaction article is a case in point.

Also, really quickly, neither of the two users on your talk page said or implied that describe was better, only that it means something different from refer. Their other comments before the thread was deleted were so brief and so general that it seems a stretch to interpret them as saying you were right and I am wrong. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

From my reading of the talk page discussion, Aeusoes1 is correct; there is no clear consensus that either of you are right. Which, by the way, is exactly what I expected to find; both parties to this dispute appear to be reasonable people who want what is best for the encyclopedia and simply disagree as to what is best. I get DRN cases where one or both parties ignores consensus, but this isn't on of those cases. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of beating my head against the wall. I've tried very hard to try and reach a middle ground; while I accepted Guy Macon's very reasonable proposal, the other party seems bent on getting everyone to agree that he is right and I am wrong, and even on this page I feel this user is engaging in WP:BAIT behavior by insisting that I have agreed to things I did not agree to, misrepresenting my words, and so on. Probably 9 out of 10 edits Aeusoes has made to articles on my watchlist, I have left as is because most have been useful. So as I have said already, why not just drop the damn stick on the glossary. I see no reason to continue this onto yet another dramah board because a) It's rather obvious that no one else cares, b) to the extent anyone cares, both people who commented on my talk page chastized Aeusoes, and c) I am having a very difficult time with AGF and keeping on the topic itself as I see this as becoming a DFTT situation at this point. This is a simple disagreement over style, and as such, really quite irrelevant and not worth the time that has already been wasted on this matter. Montanabw^(talk) 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, we have reached an impasse. There are two ways we can go from here, content and conduct. Both are described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I am not going to tell you which is best, but rather ask you to look at the options, discuss them, and try to agree on a path to resolve this.

(Flips a coin to decide which to write about first)

Content

The next step in content dispute resolution is to write up a RfC according to the rules found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If the RfC shows a strong consensus, one of you will have to accept that consensus.

There are three challenges here; The first is to agree on the wording. You need to try to cover present and future content disputes and settle the basic principles, not just cover current edits.

The second challenge is to keep it concise (the arguments above on both sides are fine for here, but if we are going to ask uninvolved editors to comment on an RfC we need to make our arguments in far fewer words).

The third challenge is deciding where to post it.

Conduct

The next step in user conduct resolution is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (also see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance). This would address the question of of whether the multiple similar changes over many articles (also known as a "meatbot") are a good idea and what Aeusoes1 should do when his mass edits are reverted by the editors working on a particular page.

You can do both, but you pretty much need to decide which to try first.

Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Neither: This is an issue that needs to be referred back to the article talk page and if ANYONE else there actually cares, maybe they can help move toward a consensus. Even this DRN action was a waste of time and should have been declined by this board, IMHO. To file an RFC over content would be right up there with the recent "The/the Beatles" issue and really a WP:LAME dispute. I see no reason to file anything over Aeusoes1's conduct, either; in general, I could not care less about Aeusoes1's meatbot edits though maybe he should slow down a bit and just ignore the few times he gets reverted. I'm not upset enough with his attitude toward me personally to bother filing any kind of conduct action about his behavior, as it is merely annoying, and he seems oblivious to how he comes across to others, even though he is quick to recognize affronts to himself. I have no interest in further beating my head against the wall. I will not file any additional action on this issue, and if it must go on (and on and on...) I think the discussion belongs on the article talk page and perhaps the wikiproject talk page. I've already noted several edits that are OK, two or three that are not. I've moved MORE than 50% on this issue, and I think it's time for the other side to be fair and compromise a bit too. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Without implying anything about who is right and who is wrong, Aeusoes1, are you OK with sending this back to the talk page? You can refile later if needed. I still don't see any chance of this being resolved here and, Given Montanabw's comments above, any further dispute resolution steps would have to be initiated by you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I came here because I felt like I wasn't getting anywhere in any of the related user and article talk pages. If Montanabw is fine with discussing the issue in an article talk page, then I get what I wanted in the first place.

I'm willing to give that a try, but if it turns out that Montanabw doesn't wish to discuss the content issue, then we are just kicking the can.

Additionally, I'd like to suggest that Montanabw and I try our best not to respond to perceived slights against the other. I have not intended to make things nasty, and I think that because Montanabw read my tone unmercifully that things have been unfruitfully personal; misreading my posts as rude (or even trolling), Montanabw has sought to respond in kind, which can easily set an unproductive spiral. Not responding in kind ends the cycle before it starts. As WP:Civility says: "Strive to become the editor who can't be baited." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am going to close this as being resolved, with an option for either party to open a new case if needed. On a personal note, I would like to complement both of you for your good-faith efforts to resolve this and to do what is best for the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Marko Cepenkov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• WavesSaid (talk · contribs)
• Jingiby (talk · contribs)
• Laveol (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute regarding the labeling of a language variety; namely, the Prilep-Bitola dialect which is universally classified as "Macedonian". The subject of the article, however, instead used "Bulgarian" as was common in that period (late 19th century). I am proposing the lead paragraph be amended to better reflect this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted to engage interested editors in a discussion on the article's talk page which has failed to remain on-topic, and the involved parties are verging on violating Wikipedia standards of civility.

How do you think we can help?

By assisting to maintain a sense of direction in the discussion (supervision) and by offering a comment or advice.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Hoodedemperor (talk · contribs)
• Utcursch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Please note under the Charminar Wikipedia page some admins has added article which leads to communal voilance in our area so I am requesting you to please remove temple article under the wikipedia page of charminar.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to remove the article but the admin is adding it back .

How do you think we can help?

As Iam requesting you the page of Charminar wikipedia should show the information only about the charminar not Bhagyalakshmi temple. there is a wikipedia page of Bhagyalakshmi temple so let them edit there.

See WP:NOTCENSORED; "leads to communal violence in our area" is not a valid reason for removal of content from a Wikipedia article.

On a sidenote, the section in the question was not added by me -- it was inserted by another user. Hoodedemperor's edits have been reverted by multiple users, including Rsrikanth05 and Abhishek191288, for NPOV-related issues. Besides POV, I've also undone his edits because of issues like dubiously-reasoned section blanking and copyright violations ([27][28][29][30]). utcursch | talk 03:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. In light of the contentious history between the two religious sites, a discussion of that history is certainly appropriate in this article. The length and amount of detail of the discussion could be a matter for discussion as a matter of undue weight, but the single brief paragraph currently in the article should not seem to raise any of those issues. The fact that one faction may dislike the other to the point of violence is no reason to exclude the material from Wikipedia, and indeed the fact that there has been such a conflict as to be reported in reliable sources is a reason to include the material in this article. If the listing editor can provide some reasons under Wikipedia principles, policies, or guidelines to exclude the material, then we can discuss it; otherwise the outcome of this request is sufficiently clear under those policies that I or another editor will close this request as "resolved in favor of inclusion of material" 24 hours after the timestamp on this post (unless some other volunteer objects, of course). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am another dispute resolution volunteer here at DRN and I concur with TransporterMan's assessment. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Previously the article was too long but now it looks fine Thanks everybody, --Hoodedemperor (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Comparison of HTML5 and Flash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tom Jenkins (talk · contribs)
• Best Dog Ever (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Best Dog Ever is biased towards Flash and reverts my neutral edits only to retain the Flash-bias that is present in the comparison article.

• [31] - Here he reverts a constructive edit, only to retain the part that HTML cannot stream videos (Streaming video), changing the "depends" tag to "no".

• [32] - Here he reverts my deletion of a wide claim that is: 1) made by Adobe themselves, 2) currently offline

• [33] - Here he reverts my edit, bringing back the negative point about HTML video streaming, and bringing back the point about "linked text frames" being supported in Flash Player. This point is actually false because linked text frames are only supported in an ActionScript library that the user must include in his project. If we were to include such things, then we would be including the features of all the AS/JS libraries in the world also, which is off-topic.

• [34] - Here he reverts a constructive edit, only to retain the part that Flash support anti-aliasing in all cases, when it actually supports AA only in certain cases - if the font is embedded. He then moves this info to a footnote, as if trying to hide such info from the user.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussing on talk page of comparison and user talk page

How do you think we can help?

Inform User:Best Dog Ever to stop adding biased information into the comparison, and to stop reverting the article content simply to preserve his biased information. He frequently reverts valuable additions only to retain some other biased info in the article. See diffs in dispute overview for examples. I'm not the only one to encounter his bias. See the talk page of comparison for more such conflict of interests by Best Dog.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Microsoft Security Essentials (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User talk:Dana boomer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 91.125.204.25 (talk · contribs)
• Cloudbound (talk · contribs)
• Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)
• Crispmuncher (talk · contribs)
• Czarkoff (talk · contribs)
• Damaster98 (talk · contribs)
• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)
• FleetCommand (talk · contribs)
• GrahamColm (talk · contribs)
• Greg Heffley (talk · contribs)
• Jasper Deng (talk · contribs)
• Jesse V. (talk · contribs)
• Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs)
• Mark Arsten (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Quantumsilverfish (talk · contribs)
• Rndomuser (talk · contribs)
• Rschen7754 (talk · contribs)
• Thumperward (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute centres on the decision to award the article Microsoft Security Essentials Featured Article status. As I pointed out at FAC this article cannot be considered to be of FA standard since it does not meet the requirements for even Good Article status. At issue is the neutrality of the reception section: sources have been selectively chosen to portray the subject in the most positive light and sources have even be misinterpreted to enhance this perception. As such the article may not be considered fair or balanced and is consequently unworthy of FA status.

As a comment at the FAR stated, we don't give FA status only to articles with glowing reviews, however, the evidence presented there blows apart the assertion on the article talk page that the reviews for this product were overwhelmingly positive. As such the article should discuss the criticisms levelled against the product alongside the gushing coverage that has already been selected. I now believe that FA status is an active inhibitor to correcting the imbalances of this article since it represents an "official" mark of approval that is cited in defence of its current form.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Raised initial objection at FAC - overlooked. Discussed on article talk page, concerns were dismissed out of hand without proper consideration and personal attacks made against me. Took to FAR, complaint dismissed by the editors responsible for the original decision on procedural grounds since FAR cannot review recent decisions.

How do you think we can help?

By providing what was suggested in the first instance at FAC: outside involvement by independent editors. Systemic bias is such that editors are naturally drawn to subjects that they are enthusiastic about and this can result in overly positive coverage. True balance, especially for a supposedly FA article, needs involvement of others with less direct enthusiasm for the product and more for the interests of the project as a whole.

Before being procedurally closed, several people did comment, including myself, [35] pointing to the flaws in the argument to delist. The rationale to delist [36] was the same given in the original FAC [37], and now this looks like a third bite of the same apple. Quantumsilverfish's complaint wasn't overlooked. On the contrary, it was acknowledged and the central point was politely and effectively refuted in a manner consistent with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. We are all on the losing side of consensus from time to time. How graciously we accept this defeat defines our character. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

To be slightly blunt - what the hell? This seems more of a "sour grapes" request to me and is entirely out of process. The FAR delegates were just doing their job, you appealed, your appeal was turned down, and that was that. Recommend speedy closure of this. --Rschen7754 19:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I voted in support of the article at FAC as I liked what I saw at the time. Other than confirming that, I wish to have no further involvement with this case. Cloudbound (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As Rschen7754 says, this ought to be speedily closed. The recent FAR did not agree with the nominators assessment, and he has to live with the fact that he's in a minority of one. Sour grapes indeed. It ought to be obvious as well that DRN has no remit to judge whether or not an article merits FA status, that's for FAC and FAR to decide, and they have. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This article will appear on the main page as "Today's Featured Article" on 23rd November - i.e. in just over two days. I'm sure the discussion here won't spill over into any edit warring or disruption on the article itself particularly when it's on show, since (a) the article is currently stable, indicating good behaviour by editors; (b) I'm sure that no-one would think of behaving differently in the next few days, particularly while a discussion is taking place here; and (c) I'm sure that no-one here would need reminding of the possible consequences if they did. Bencherlite^Talk 20:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As for the underlying issue, WP:DRN is not a venue for appeals from decisions (whether to keep or remove FA status) made at WP:FAR. Bencherlite^Talk 20:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

While a discussion here on the content of the article would be appropriate, a discussion on whether or not the article meets FA status is not. The presentation of this dispute gives me the impression that the filing party is looking for a discussion on the FA status. That is not a content issue so I see no reason to leave this dispute open. Ryan Vesey 20:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the FAC and the FAR, checking the article for its coverage of poor performance. It looks to me as if Quantumsilverfish is misinformed as to the meaning of FA: it is not about whether the topic is outstanding by itself, it is about whether the article about it is well-written and well-referenced. A mediocre product can certainly have its Wikipedia article be rated at FA level. Binksternet (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing: Not a content dispute.Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

DRN is not an appeal venue after you've been turned down from Featured Article Review. So many different users involved that it is not reasonable to be valid here. Featured Article Delegates (and their director) hold sway over the Featured Article process. If you've been turned down after a reasonable discussion then the only venues that remain open are the Administrator's Noticeboard or the appeal to Jimbo. Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

See additional comments in the discussion for ways to move forward Hasteur (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)}}

Closing comments by DRN volunteer: Hasteur is entirely correct. DRN is not a place to appeal when you don't like the result of a Featured Article Review. The Guide For Participants at the top of this page clearly explains exactly what DRN is and is not.

Also, when you file a case at DRN, please use a short, descriptive title like "Microsoft Security Essentials", not a monster like "Talk:Microsoft Security Essentials,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive2, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1, User talk:Dana boomer". I had to go and edit all the notices to the huge list of allegedly involved users (which, BTW, had one duplicate and one nonexistent user.) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pussy Riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MaxBrowne (talk · contribs)
• Finalyzer (talk · contribs)
• Khazar2 (talk · contribs)
• JDCMAN (talk · contribs)
• 76.193.19.** (talk · contribs)
• other IP's (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Extensive discussion on Talk Page and numerous reverts and edit wars over the correct translation of the title "Putin Zassal", with "Putin Pissed Himself" and "Putin Chickened Out" being the most popular.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Included more than one translation in the text with sources, but heading of section still continues to be subject of edit wars, mostly by IP's. 3O brought in, he suggested dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved admins, experienced editor, native Russian speakers to discuss and advise future course of action.

There is always a problem with translating other languages because words often have overtones that are not listed in dictionaries and which are not apparent to non-native speakers. My feeling is that "Putin Pissed Himself" conveys the crudity of the original "Putin Zassal" better than "Putin Chickened Out" while still retaining the sense that he is afraid, but then I'm not a native Russian speaker. I also note that wikipedia is not censored.

Other editors feel that only translations directly sourced to English language media should be used. However there is no general agreement in English language media of the correct translation, and arguably there is no one "correct" translation. I favour a translation that conveys both the crudity and the literal meaning of the original, rather than translations printed in English language media, which tend to be censored.MaxBrowne (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve with this translation. Do we want to reflect the translation most used by English language news media? Do we want the most literal translation? Do we want to use the translation that most accurately conveys the Russian meaning?
Notwithstanding, I used google to get as many media sources as I could between 20 January (when the action took place) and 29 February. Here are some translations that appeared in English language media at the time:

The Guardian: "Putin's Got Scared" [38]
NPR: "Putin Got Scared" (but notes that the lyrics in Russian are "ruder than that") [39]
AFP: "Putin has Pissed Himself" [40] (some versions of this report were censored.) [41]
Daily Telegraph: "Putin Has P***** Himself."[42]
The St Petersburg Times:"Putin Got Scared"[43]
RIA Novosti: "Putin's Got Scared"[44]
The Moscow Times: "Putin Got Scared"[45](slightly naughty link, the actual article is subscription only)
Voice of Russia: Won't even allude to the title.[46]
Myplace: "Putin's afraid" [47](admittedly doesn't meet the "reliable source" standards)
Transitions Online: "Putin Pissed Himself"[48]
The Other Russia: "Putin Pissed Himself"[49]
Animal New York: "Putin Pissed Himself", alternatively "Putin is Chickenshit"[50]
Bust: "Putin Has Pissed Himself" [51]

Conclusion: the more mainstream media translated it as "Putin Got Scared" (or similar), the blogosphere translated it as "Putin Pissed Himself" (or similar).

Speaking as a native English speaker, I don't like the translation "Putin Chickened Out". He "chickened out" of what? To "chicken out" means to lack the courage to do what is necessary or appropriate. In the context of the song, I don't believe this is the correct translation. I prefer "Putin Pissed Himself" because it conveys the crudity of the original Russian, but "Putin Got Scared" is also a reasonable translation.

Having narrowed the translation down to "Putin Pissed Himself" or "Putin Got Scared", a possible compromise is to quote "'Putin Zassal'" in the header and give the various English translations in the body. But in that case for the sake of consistency we'd need to quote Russian titles for their other songs too, and translate them in the body.MaxBrowne (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a native Russian speaker. "Putin pissed himself" isn't correct translation for "Путин зассал". The fact that it's more popular (judging google hits) doesn't mean much, it could be due the translation picked by the wikipedia article. "to piss oneself" actually translates to "обоссаться": http://universal_ru_en.academic.ru/1739861/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F Slang meaning of "обоссаться" would be "to be very scared": http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%81%D1%8F BTW, it's the same as a slang meaning for "piss oneself": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/piss_oneself

Literal translation of "зассать" would be "to piss", or "to wet all over": http://lingvopro.abbyyonline.com/en/Translate/en-ru/%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C. Slang meaning would be "to be afraid", fear, "to chicken out". http://ru.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C (see translation for "бояться") http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C

So, both literal and slang translations of "зассать" to "to piss oneself" aren't correct. "Зассать" can be used as "piss oneself", if used in expressions like "зассать себя". Finalyzer (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The good news in this debate is that there appear to be plenty of sources for each translation, so neither appears to me flat-out wrong; I was surprised to see this escalate into an edit war, but I suppose it's an unusually contentious page. FWIW, I prefer the same version as Max, as "Putin Pissed Himself" gives a far greater number of Google hits (159,000 vs. 26,400 for "Chickened out"). It's also the most common title for the video on YouTube by 9 to 1. I don't see any compelling reason why we should use a less common translation here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if number of google hits is a reliable guide. Lots of the hits will be blogs, forums etc. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

True. I'm just using it as an initial guide here, and would be glad to see more in-depth stats on what reliable sources have used. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a volunteer here at DRN. I'll be happy to help resolve this issue. I'll wait until all parties have posted opening comments (or until a few days go by) before getting into details. In the meantime, parties should post (in the "opening comments" sections above) quotes from a few reliable sources which buttress their proposed resolution. --Noleander (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the article currently contains the text:

The title has been variously translated by English language media as "Putin has Pissed Himself"[40], "Putin Chickened Out"[30], "Putin Got Scared"[19] and "Putin is Wetting Himself"[41].

That looks pretty accurate ... are some editors objecting to that list? Or is this dispute mostly about the subsection title? (which currently reads "Putin Pissed Himself" ... which is not one of the four translations listed in the body). --Noleander (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's the header that keeps getting reverted. Some apparently feel that "pissed himself" is an incorrect translation, others interpret any title other than "pissed himself" as censorship and revert it, and the cycle repeats. I tried to compromise by adding various translations to the text but the edit wars continue over the header, mostly by IP's. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

To comment: (MaxBrowne): "To "chicken out" means to lack the courage to do what is necessary or appropriate. In the context of the song, I don't believe this is the correct translation". Right, "to lack the courage to do what is necessary or appropriate" that's exactly what "зассать" means. I strongly disagree with "got scared"(испугался) translation, but "is afraid"(боится) would be OK in the context of the song. Finalyzer (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly did he "chicken out" of? To "chicken out" always refers to a specific course of action, either spelled out ("he chickened out of the parachute jump") or clear from the context. The phrase makes no sense without a context that makes it absolutely clear what action the person "chickened out" of. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it clear what did he "got scared" of? I can provide translation what PR said about the title, will it help? Finalyzer (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The translation "Putin is Chickenshit" is starting to grow on me now... but it was only really used by one semi-credible source, a New York art magazine and then only as an alternative translation. Still it's worth noting that Marina Galperina is presumably a native Russian speaker. Can I ask what is the difference between "ссать" and "зассать"? What effect does the "за-" prefix have on Russian verbs in general? Could you give some examples of their use? My Russian is minimal but I'd like to just get a feel for how these words are actually used, rather than what dictionaries say. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

"за-": http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D0%B7%D0%B0- "зассал" translates either to "started to piss" or "pissed all over"/"pissed everything around". According to PR, "Putin started to piss" because he is afraid of losing his power. Finalyzer (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the dispute is mostly about the subsection header. Let's hold off on discussing this, and wait a couple more days to see if the remaining 3 parties want to contribute opening statements. In the meantime, the rest of us can put on our thinking caps and try to come up with creative solution for this dilemma. --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should IAR and rename the section header to "Putin Zassal". Normally we like to use the English translations for a section about a foreign-language song, but in this case I think it better to use a transliteration followed by a list of translations (most common first) in the text. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with this as a resolution. It technically cannot be wrong it it's the latin version of the name directly from cyrillic and the alternate translations can be mentioned in the prose. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I see how this may be a necessary compromise to stop the reversions, but I'd personally prefer any of the English-language translations above as a section header. "Putin Zassal" won't mean much to the average Wikipedia user looking over song titles, and it will also look odd to have one song title in Russian while the others are in English. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as a compromise to stop the reversions. I see it as the proper response to the fact that multiple reliable sources have given us different translations. Some things simply cannot be translated exactly without losing the nuances. As an example, I was in Japan recently and the question of the American phrase "brownnosing" came up. The Japanese engineers looked up "brown" and "nose", but that didn't give them the meaning. First I explained that it was referring to someone kissing his bosses ass. Then I had to explain that it wasn't a slang reference to homosexuality, but rather to saying the boss is right when you know he is wrong. Then I had to address the fact that to them that behavior is normal and desirable, while to a US engineer it is undesirable. I don't think that there is a Japanese word that translates "brownnosing" while keeping the nuances. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable solution to me. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am going to close this as being resolved in favor of using Russian transliterations in the section titles and multiple translations in the section texts. Of course further discussion on the talk page is encouraged -- there may be a better solution. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• St James' Church, Briercliffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Saintjamesbriercliffe (talk · contribs)
• Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Mike Rosoft continues to unedit my edits. I (as vicar) am trying simply to remove the notice that says my church is open on Wendesday afternoons (which it is not); that my parish administrator is not Lynn Rogers (she is not) and finally that the churchmanship of my church is best described as liberal catholic (he mistakenly thinks I am referring to the (Roman) Catholic church which I am not - this is why I wrote catholic with a small c. Churchmanship in the Church of England is varied and includes evangelical, catholic and broad amongst other categories. I cannot understand his motive in constantly changing my edits unless it is his avowed athesim mentioned on his wikipedia page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Leaving messages on the edit page

How do you think we can help?

Third party intervention.

My edit was somewhat misguided; I had reverted the changes because of the introduction of links to non-existent articles like "Liberal/Affirming/Inclusive catholic Churchmanship". Unless there's an objection, I'll change the Churchmanship entry in the infobox from "Central" to "Liberal Anglo-Catholic". (The rest of the changes have already been done, and I am not disputing them.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the username Saintjamesbriercliffe is a violation of Wikipedia's username guideline as it appears to apply to a church organization rather than a single person. See WP:ORGNAME. Other than that, I have no comment on the dispute. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
• The issue is currently being addressed via ORTS. No discussion has occurred yet on the talk page, which is a requirement for DRN. The filing editor is a new user, so I suggest visiting Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions if he has further questions about editing Wikipedia or the site's policies and guidelines. A username change is also needed through Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple, as per Binksternet.--xanchester (t) 18:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mobile device management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sgates05 (talk · contribs)
• biker_biker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Biker Biker,

i think he advertises for a company on wiki. I think he has got conflict of interest.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

He isn't able to compromise. i´ve tried. he has no argument. Does anyone who is editor for a longer time in Wikipedia is always right? I wrote him: The Resourcelink is a copyright violation. The link is from Notify Corp. and it´s a internal link. Extract from Gartner MDM 2012 Research, G00230508 Gartner wrote: "A leading vendor is not a default choice for all buyers, and clients are warned not to assume that they should buy only from the Leaders quadrant."

How do you think we can help?

List all of MDM companies or none. It distorts competition.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Carson Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Anonymous (talk · contribs)
• AlexJFox (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The entire page is a glorious triumph of self-promotional blurbs and content obviously authored by the subject, Carson Grant. It is also missing an entry about a lawsuit levied against the subject this morning in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas by a plaintiff with legal counsel. When Anonymous corrected the page by removing self-promotional material, uncited material, and irrelevant material where the subject is boasting, and added the entry about the lawsuit, AlexJFox appeared and reverted the material several times, claiming that Anonymous was biased because the court case will be citable online this week but is not yet as of tonight. Simultaneously, however, AlexJFox refuses to remove clear, overt instances of the subject having authored his own Wikipedia biography page. To Anonymous this looks like cheerleading, and as though AlexJFox in fact has the bias - one in favor of the subject. Anonymous believes that if the lawsuit entry should be removed, then so should the self-promotional, clearly self-authored content - which is most of the Carson Grant bio page. AlexJFox disagrees and insists no changes be made except to the less favorable lawsuit entry. He is basically stating that to add a less than glowing entry of provable data to a Wiki biography page is an act of bias, but his protecting the subject's multiple violations of WP:COI:6 and putting them back when they are correctly reverted as per Wiki Community policy is not bias. Can you guys look into this and see who's right? 74.73.71.13 (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.71.13 (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have merely restored the article to the last good revision before this IP's edits per WP:BLP. The content added, regardless of whether it be fact or not, was uncited and defamatory. I have explained this to the IP already and I have reported the IP at WP:AIV due to the threats on my talk page that the content will be re-added. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. For Wikipedia factuality, it has to be re-added. The lawsuit mentioned was filed this morning in a court of law in Pennsylvania, and will be Googlable, as well as stamped by the court and served to the subject in hours. Being sued is a fact of life for many people. Why is this subject immune to it being reported? To conceal the fact that a subject has been sued does not seem to fit the ethos of Wikipedia. I have no personal bias against the subject, despite what Alex thinks. There was plenty I could say in the entry but did not. I used the words "alleged" and "allegedly" throughout the entry. The page however is riddled with self-promotion authored by the subject, and AlexJFox has not worked to keep the page neutral in that respect, but instead where it concerns less than favorable factuality that conflicts with the subject's (and possibly his) wishes to keep the page a glowing testimony to the subject's personal greatness! That is not how Wikipedia works. Alex seems to have appointed himself the personal guardian of the subject, and is behaving, if I may point out, like the subject's publicist. That is NOT what a Wiki Editor does. I request a new editor be appointed to the page, or that the page be struck. The subject, after all, is not famous. It is odd he has a page implying that he might be - and even odder that any facts that do not follow a perceived line of favorability in the article get struck down, while peacock entries remain boldly in the open, unable to be removed without being swiftly reverted by this Editor. That's my complaint, and that's all it is. Really. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You display a total lack of knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia through your actions yet you continue to dictate what is and isn't "wiki". I've yet to see you sign one post and you are completely blind-folded to the bias of the content you added. I posted examples on my talk page of defamatory content where you didn't use the words allege or allegedly once. You have a huge COI here, you should really stay away from this article. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Speculation about what fellow Wikipedians know about the workings of Wikipedia is generally not considered civil around here. I seldom edit anything but have before and have been a Wikipedian a long time, Alex. I would refer you to this paragraph from WP:COI: "Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known." You're getting pretty upset about this. I would suggest you allow a truly neutral editor to manage the page from now on. It would be good for the page, good for facts, and good for Wikipedia. I am now going to be quiet and allow an Administrator to review everything posted and bring in a consensus decision, if she or he feels it is warranted. Discussing a dispute before an Administrator has opened it officially tends to escalate passions, and you are clearly quite passionate about your views. I on the other hand just want to see the typical Wikipedia balance and neutrality on the page you feel so strongly about. That's all. Good night. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You filed this request improperly, as indicated by the dead links at the top and the absence of this thread in the page header. Therefore it probably won't even get looked at. Plus this is totally the wrong avenue for any complaint you may have because you aren't adhering to policy in the first place. Also, I'm not getting upset at all, just frustrated that you are wasting time by POV pushing into this article because you're clearly the "female director" indicated (or someone working on her behalf). I suggest you read WP:COI yourself as well as WP:OWN and practice what you preach. You are clearly the non-neutral party, I'm just the unfortunate person that spotted your edits via Huggle. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There. :) Now please allow a volunteer or other Administrator to examine the dispute without either your or my interruption or interference and decide the best course of action for the page. Thanks, and go have a hot bath and some tea. Both soothe frustration and agitated nerves. 74.73.71.13 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Brickfilms LLC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gabbroc (talk · contribs)
• McGeddon (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In 2007, Brickfilms.com was described in mainstream media as the internet's "main hub for Lego filmmaking". Shortly after, the site was purchased by Cynthia Price, and the majority of the site's user base migrated to BricksInMotion.com. Despite several efforts to revive Brickfilms.com, it has seen comparatively little activity since; one source described it as a "desolate wasteland".

These facts are not in dispute. However, McGeddon asserts that none of the available sources are sufficient for encyclopedic use, and that it would be better to omit the facts altogether and only describe how the site operated until 2007. Gabbroc asserts that omitting the facts makes the page significantly misleading about the current nature of Brickfilms.com, and that the sources proposed were acceptable under the circumstances in which they were used.

The Brickfilms LLC page presently omits any reference to the migration.

The two proposed sources are:

The Brickfilms Chronicle: A self-published historical document written by a prominent former member of Brickfilms.com, which has been referenced as a primary source in several other accounts of the migration. Presently, the Archive.org server housing it is down.

BrickAnimation.com: A news site run by two prominent members of the brickfilming community, David Pagano and David Pickett. David Pagano has been hired by ABC News to demonstrate brickfilming techniques on national television, and has also produced animations for The LEGO Group.

As with many notable website schisms, no mainstream-media sources are known to exist.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Coincident with discussion on the talk page, I (Gabbroc) proposed a series of compromise wordings, all of which McGeddon reverted. The core sourcing dispute this evolved into is described above.

How do you think we can help?

Either BrickAnimation.com or The Brickfilms Chronicle should be allowed as sources on this topic, or another way of sourcing the migration should be proposed and accepted by both parties.

1. Why mentioning the migration is important

Presenting a misleading impression of the topic clearly runs counter to Wikipedia's policies and goals. At present, the Brickfilms LLC page presents a misleading impression of the nature of Brickfilms.com; the average reader is likely to assume that Brickfilms.com remains "the internet's main hub for Lego filmmaking". However, this is not the case. That the current state of the article may be misleading to lay readers is virtually indisputable.

Coverage of the migration - at least in passing - is critical to understanding the nature of Brickfilms.com. It makes no sense to give a blow-by-blow account of the site's history, as the current version does, and then abruptly leave out what is arguably the most significant event in the timeline.

2. Why the source(s) should be accepted

BrickAnimation.com is as close to an "established expert" source as one is going to get on this topic; as mentioned above, co-founder David Pagano has been recognized multiple times by mainstream media for his brickfilming-related credentials. This sort of source is routinely accepted when reporting on the internal politics of major websites - see the article on 4chan, for example.

This is something akin to if (hypothetically) Slashdot shut down in 2007 and has been a static mirror page ever since, but Wikipedia refuses to mention this fact because the only sources referring to it are independent (albeit respected) tech blogs - thus leaving readers with the mistaken impression that Slashdot is still a major source for technology news. In this context, the sources proposed are entirely appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbroc (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The current article says that brickfilms.com was considered the "main hub" in 2007. I don't think this implies anything either way about the site's current popularity, particularly in the context of the internet where five years is a very long time.

Pagano may be the closest we've got to a recognised expert, but he does not meet the requirements for WP:SPS. We could quote him talking about his own website in an article about his website, but as I understand it policy would not support quoting him in an article about a third-party site, saying "in 2009 most people left this website and now use mine" .

If Slashdot shut down in 2007 with no press coverage, Wikipedia would cite their (presumed) farewell announcement. If Slashdot's userbase declined in 2007, with a general feeling among fans that most of the site's users had migrated to Hacker News, Wikipedia would need a reliable source to back that up. --McGeddon (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to read the Guide for participants at the top of this page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am now opening this up for discussion. Rather than rehashing the talk page discussion that did not resolve the problem, I would like you both to examine and discuss a similar case where Wikipedia covered an an online community that pretty much moved elsewhere: Digg and Reddit.

If you go to http://xkcd.com/802/ or http://xkcd.com/802_large/ (High marks for being funny and popular. Reliable? Not so much.) and look at the top of Troll Bay (to the right of Twitter and to the left of the Sea of Memes), you can see the Digg users moving to Reddit using lifeboats. So, how does Wikipedia cover the same event? Reddit doesn't mention it at all, but Digg does some interesting things. Take a look. We will wait. (...hums song "Dispute Resolution", sung to the tune of "Kung Fu Fighting"...) Back already? That was quick! OK, see what they did there? They gave the Alexa ranking of Reddit in the second paragraph of the Digg article. Of course that required a reliable secondary source. Is there one for the two sites we are discussing? Allexa, perhaps? Now look at the Criticism section. See how they handled that? Again, if you have reliable secondary sources, you can do much the same.

I am going to wait for both of you to weigh in on the above before discussing what to do if you don't have reliable secondary sources or when you disagree about the reliability of the sources, That's important, but I want to get to it a bit later after we examine the case of Digg and Reddit. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy Macon.

First, commenting on Guy Macon's opening comments.

The Digg-Reddit case is helpful, but not entirely analogous. As I mentioned above, this wasn't just a decline in the site's user base; the Price purchase lead to massive political upheaval in the site, and for years after it was (and largely still is) essentially abandoned and left to the spambots. IMHO it makes no sense to mention minutiae of the site's former history (like the Leasure purchase) and then leave out what was arguably its most significant event. In terms of relative historical magnitude to the site's other events, it's like neglecting to mention that the USSR dissolved.

Obviously, it would be best if more reliable sources existed. I did attempt to find Alexa rankings or other site traffic data for Brickfilms.com, but there didn't seem to be enough historical data to cite. It's pretty obvious looking at the site's archives that comparatively little happened 2009-2012, but that kind of observation isn't really a "reliable source" either. (Plus, it's complicated by the fact that a large amount of legacy material was recently re-posted to the site by the most recent admin.)

Second, responding to McGeddon's opening comments.

1. I'm not sure how you could think that the current page isn't misleading. The majority of it is written in present tense, and no clear effort is made to distinguish the past-tense parts (was the main hub) from the present-tense parts (hosts a community). Even if it isn't misleading to you, it's hard to see how lay readers would uniformly come away with the right impression. Guy Macon can perhaps offer a third opinion on this.

(See also my comments on the magnitude of this event, above.)

2. WP:SPS states: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As mentioned above, BrickAnimation.com co-founder Pagano has been hired by ABC News to demonstrate brickfilming. That seems like "work in the relevant field being published by reliable third-party publications" to me. If you could be more specific about how he fails the SPS criteria, I'd appreciate it.

The main difficulty in this case is that David Pickett (Pagano's co-writer) is the author of the article in question, not Pagano himself. However, BrickAnimation.com as a whole is closely affiliated with Pagano, and Pickett himself has been referenced as an authority on brickfilming in The University of Chicago Magazine. Guy Macon may have some input on this.

Third, two other possible solutions that might work if the proposed sources aren't acceptable.

1. One possibility is to directly attribute the sources in-text; for example, saying something like "Notable brickfilmer David Pickett stated that the purchase was highly controversial and prompted most of the site's userbase to migrate to BricksInMotion.com, leaving Brickfilms.com largely abandoned." This (partially) switches the sourcing question from being "is this a reliable source of history" to "is this a reliable source of what Pickett said." However, quoting Pickett at all may not be ideal if he himself isn't considered a reliable source.

2. Another possibility is to approach the whole issue in a roundabout way, and source everything directly to the original forum posts: mentioning the en masse resignation of the site's administrative board, the professed intentions of many members to move, etc. This raises a couple of problems, however, most obviously that much of the migration-related content has since been deleted (presumably for PR reasons.) Gabbroc (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

To just respond to Guy Macon's example, for now - using Alexa as a source for a rival site's comparative traffic is a little surprising, particularly in the lede, when secondary-source critical commentary must surely exist. But the actual details on the migration of users seems strongly sourced to Time Magazine and other press coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

On minor clarification; just because another Wikipedia page does something doesn't mean that the page is right, but it is worth looking at for ideas. More later after I see McGeddon's comments. --Guy Macon (talk)

He did reply once (see the last paragraph that kind of runs together with my comments), but I presume more is necessary. Gabbroc (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I just missed it. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:EUI seems to cover that quite well. Don't let it happen again ;) Hasteur (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(Smile) OK, getting back to the dispute, let's consider suggestion #1 above:

" One possibility is to directly attribute the sources in-text; for example, saying something like 'Notable brickfilmer David Pickett stated that the purchase was highly controversial and prompted most of the site's userbase to migrate to BricksInMotion.com, leaving Brickfilms.com largely abandoned.' This (partially) switches the sourcing question from being 'is this a reliable source of history' to 'is this a reliable source of what Pickett said.' "

May I assume that among brickfilmers David Pickett is notable, or do we need to discuss that? If he is, is the above an acceptable partial compromise to all concerned? I am not trying to push either of you either way; I am just looking for areas of agreement. Also, is there anyone else who is notable that we can quote as disagreeing with the statements?

As for the original forum posts being deleted, it might be worth a shot seeing if the Wayback Machine has copies. Probably not, but it is probably worth spending a few minutes looking. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think McGeddon disagrees that Pickett is notable among brickfilmers; he just didn't agree that Pickett was a sufficient source for an encyclopedic citation. My inclination, if we go this route, would be to reference the word "notable" to the magazine article on him, and then reference the whole sentence to the post he wrote about Brickfilms.com. But we'll have to see what McGeddon thinks. Gabbroc (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've no opinion on Pickett's notability among brickfilmers, as I'm not familiar with the genre or its community (this is just an article that fell onto my watchlist at some point). The University of Chicago magazine interview would be fine as a source if we were writing about Pickett, but I don't think it makes him an "established expert" in the particular sense used by WP:SPS, as it's an interview rather than a published work.

Even if we regarded him as an expert, though, WP:SPS seems to clearly rule out the use of self-published expert sources to source statements which "involve claims about third parties" - if an expert is making a potentially libellous claim, Wikipedia requires that it has been printed in a fact-checked source rather than on a personal blog. But does "third parties" include websites as well as people?

Sourcing to old brickfilms.com forum posts would be okay if we could find any relevant statements from the site's owners. I'm not sure where messages from resigning forum admins would fall on the WP:SPS/third-party spectrum. --McGeddon (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I do appreciate what is being attempted here -- making the article less misleading -- but i just can't see how we can use these sources to do it. I think the best we can do is to make sure that various claims that are already in the article are dated rather than being in the present tense, but the sources just aren't good enough to do a lot more than that. Of course there may be a solution I haven't thought of... --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Another third party editor here. One option is to reduce the puffery in the current article by replacing the "main hub for Lego filmmaking" quote with another one from the Wall Street Journal article.--xanchester (t) 12:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the "claims about a third party" point is a reasonable objection. I don't personally think it's a serious issue here - at least if we're only citing the quote, not the fact - but it's arguable enough that another option would be better if available.

Regarding the second possibility (quoting forum posts), we're unlikely to find a statement directly from the current owner - Cynthia Price - because she has a history of trying to cover up the decline (she has made POV edits to the Brickfilms page in the past.) My current best idea in this regard is to include the single sentence "By 2009, however, users described the site as 'dead'."[52][53] Linking to an archived version of these posts would be best (to prevent possible administrative meddling), but we'd have to wait a bit - they're not yet on archive.org, although I forced a capture. Opinions?

We may also be able to find a quote from Joshua Leasure (the admin who sold the site to Price), but nothing I've found so far has been satisfactory. I have some Real Life™ to deal with right now, but I'll try more later. Gabbroc (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Posts by regular members, or any form of user-generated content, are not considered reliable as primary sources because they qualify as self-published. A quote from the founder or owner might work, depending on the source, and if you can find it.--xanchester (t) 20:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The idea isn't to cite the posts as a source on Brickfilms.com's history, but rather a source on what users said about Brickfilms.com's history. If the question is "what did users say?" then forum posts by the users are an entirely appropriate source.

The potential problem in this case isn't the source, but rather the inclusion of user quotes at all. In most cases the opinion of site users doesn't matter; but in this case, if we're looking for some kind of way to make the article less misleading, it seems like a straightforward solution. Gabbroc (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not the way to do it. someone who wants to make the article more misleading can generate posts on the discussion board and cite them here. On what basis would we then accept some user-generated content and reject other user-generated content? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point.

I've been attempting to locate site-activity metrics, but I'm not quite happy with what I've turned up yet. There's this post from the site's admin in 2007 showing about 500,000 pageviews a month. We could compare this to the current Alexa stats, but comparing pageview stats from two different sources is generally not a good idea, and the Alexa stats are probably wildly inaccurate anyway.

Alternately, we can compare forum-activity dates, although this might get wordy. For example:

"In the years following, however, activity on the site declined substantially. A snapshot from October 2007 showed that only one of the public forum categories had not seen activity within the prior 24 hours;[54] by contrast, a similar snapshot from three years later showed that only one of the public forum categories had seen activity within the prior 24 hours.[55]"

Does this count as original research? It's easy to verify by just glancing at the snapshots. Gabbroc (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

It'd be WP:SYNTHESIS to conclude a "substantial decline" from that, since neither source explicitly makes that assertion - we've no real way of knowing whether the snapshots demonstrate a genuine decline in traffic, or just a shift in which categories users were posting to. Or if by chance we're looking at one anomalously busy day in 2007.

Even comparing pageviews can be sketchy - if we have solid primary sources to show a decline from 500k pageviews a month to 100k, it could mean the site is less active, or it could mean they restructured the site to simplify navigation. For anything that compares raw data, we really need a secondary source that puts it into context for us. --McGeddon (talk) 10:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the best we can do is say what the pageviews were using the word "was". That and reducing the puffery as Xanchester suggested above. As for the decline and the users moving, we simply do not have any reliable sources for that and thus we have to leave it out. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I still personally think the Pickett source would have been sufficient, but since it's unlikely we'll get any kind of consensus on that, rewording the current content seems like the only workable solution. If we go this route, my suggestion would be to say something like:

"Brickfilms.com is one of several[56] online communities dedicated to "brickfilms", stop-motion animations made with Lego. The website, which has been referenced in a number of media outlets[57][58], hosts a forum for filmmakers, technical articles and resources, and a directory of brickfilms."

The "one of several" comment would generally not be necessary, but in this case I think it helps give the reader a slightly more accurate impression. (Especially since it's a niche hobby, and readers may not otherwise suspect that there are multiple sites dedicated to it.) Replacing the quote from the WSJ with the generic "has been referenced" helps establish notability, without saying anything controversial or misleading about the site's actual status. (An older version of the article contained a longer list of media references, but they probably aren't necessary; I was just thinking of using the two already in the references.) Gabbroc (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

McGeddon, does the above seem like a compromise that everybody can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"The site has been referenced in media outlets" seems a little clumsy; obviously it's important to Wikipedia to establish notability with sources, but it'd be more useful to the reader to actually draw something from these references. "One of several" is okay, although I'd push the reference to the end of the sentence to stop the "several" from looking oddly controversial. But I'm concerned that by dropping "described in 2007 as one of the main hubs", it's no longer clear why this website is of any particular significance (even if the website is of no particular significance today, we should try to explain to the reader why we were bothering to write about it at all). --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gabbroc, does the above seem like a compromise that everybody can live with? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be, if there was an actual wording proposed. How about:

"Brickfilms.com is one of several online communities dedicated to "brickfilms", stop-motion animations made with Lego.[59] It hosts a forum for filmmakers, technical articles and resources, and a directory of brickfilms.[60] In 2007 the site was the internet's "main hub for Lego filmmaking", according to the Wall Street Journal.[61]"

Gabbroc (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, and the third sentence is a better way of framing the 2007 quote to suggest to the reader that it might now be out of date. I'm happy with all that. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am going to mark this as being resolved and close the case. In closing, I would like to say that, while some DRN cases involve dealing with "difficult" individuals, you two have been very easy to work with. You clearly both want what is best for the encyclopedia, and the article is better for it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs)
• Himesh84 (talk · contribs)
• JimmyRajapaksha86 (talk · contribs)^{(Blocked user)}

Dispute overview

Inclusion of a "Criticism" section in the article Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, which I hold is redundant to material already present in the page, poorly sourced, and not following the policy of neutrality. (Similar problems have been pointed out at the deletion debate of Issues In Darusman Report.)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at a Talk:Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka and User talk:Himesh84.

How do you think we can help?

An uninvolved, experienced user(s) should assess the article, and determine if and how Himesh84's material should be included.

Thanks Rosoft for get it to here.

My objection was about the structure and policies on two identical, competitive reports. LLRC and UNSG's report. This was discussed warning section and UNSG's report section in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Himesh84&redirect=no

According to this discussion only problematic place is not about poorly sourced ( my content based on the source. If not someone can show specifically) but the structure and policies hidden under in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. He never pointed out this is poorly sourced. But he repeated this has duplicated in the other section.

Rosoft's stand was "Why doesn't the article about the United Nations report have a "Criticism" section? Because the report has only been criticized by Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka's response is already covered in the article. Got it? " But my opinion is if someone made criticism it is a criticism. Then you should have a criticism section. Also China , Russia has criticized the panel as stated in rest of the rest of the article(The panel's appointment was welcomed by the United States and EU but criticised by Russia and China). According to his logic criticism of human right groups (LLRC) has to go with responses of human right groups section. But he has created his own version of logic saying LLRC was criticized by more than one human right groups. So it should be in the "critism' section. I don't think he expressed it in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia rather his version of policies

My major point is Mike Rosoft keeping his own version of different unfair logic/policies to 'criticism section' for 2 reports(LLRC and UNSG's) and hide them under in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia. I repetitively requested to specify the policy. But he never specified. Also where it currently remains in a page is not important. Wiki pages can be change at anytime and we should place things in the best place. --Himesh84 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himesh84 (talk • contribs)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Visa requirements for United States citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of states with limited recognition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• XLR8TION (talk · contribs)
• Outback the koala (talk · contribs)
• L.tak (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the List of Visa Requirements for U.S. Citizens I have attempted numerous times to remove several unrecognized nations and disputed territories from the list. Five editors who have no knowledge of U.S. Passport law keep reading them and I tried to removed them with no success. The U.S. State Department issues passports and they also state that misuse or a passport whether visiting an unrecognized state or a nation with an active embargo (Cuba, Iran) can result in prosecution for the U.S. passport holder. Fantasy countries such as South Ossetia and Abzhakia have no recognition from the U.S. and that non-recognized states should only be listed in articles related to states that recognize them.For example the Turkis Republic of Northern Cyprus should only be listed in the article for Visa restrictions for Turkish Citizens and vice versa. South Ossetia can be added to Visa Restrictions for Russian, Venezuelan, and Nicaraguan citizens and vice versa. However the State Department requires treasury licenses to travel to enemy states, hence solidifying their ability to determine passport use and misuse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided lengthy explanation on the recognition of sovereign states and provided substantial proof that U.S. passports are not good for travel in disputed territory. Furthermore, I have have asked the disputed material to be removed from the article until all legal recourses on Wikipedia are used. The editors have formed a junta squashing dissident editors.

How do you think we can help?

Removal of non-recognized states from the U.S. article and a disclaimer that travel to these disputed regions is not permissible per U.S. foreign affairs. It's completely misleading and should be remove immediately!

• The discussion on Talk:List of states with limited recognition indicates that at the heart of the dispute is the question: should the United States Governmental point of view be followed and thus states that require a license or states that are not recognized by the US be added? XLR8TION seems to think that is the case, while I think that we should record the actual situation (record those who de facto control access to the territory, whether recognized by the US or not. However, if the US would not allow visa stamps (as XLR8TION has claimed, but did not provide a source for), that is interesting information to include. Whether the US disadvises travel to those territories (which XLR8TION has provided sources for) is IMO irrelevant to the case about the visa procedures.
• The discussion on the talk page shows several editors in favour of keeping the states with limited recognition (XLR8TION: fantasy states) in, but only XLR8TION disagrees. I have therefore (re)implemented the change yesterday as I considered this a WP:CONSENSUS (but not unanimity). From here we can go two ways: consider it a consensus (and close this), or involve also the other 4-5 people that commented, as else any resolution found here would require further discussion with those. So: what to do? L.tak (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• WavesSaid (talk · contribs)
• Алиса Селезньова (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This article is about a newly composed song from the Republic of Macedonia, and is adequately sourced. User:Алиса Селезньова believes this song is an old Bulgarian folk song, a claim she hasn't provided a single source for. I also renamed the page to the title under which the song was originally released and is currently marketed; this was reverted by User:Алиса Селезньова without explanation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Apart from discussing the problem on the article's talk page, I have also engaged the other user in a discussion on her own user talk page.

How do you think we can help?

By enforcing WP:RELIABLESOURCES.

It is not believed by me - this is the popular point of view in Bulgaria and since there is a dispute about the folklore heritage between Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, the Bulgarian point of view should be mentioned. Attempts to add the Bulgarian point of view have been reverted - if sources are needed I will provide them when I can, but about missing sources I believe there is a suitable template not immediate revert.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is indeed as popular as you claim, you should be able to find a suitable source for your assertion. This particular song cannot be a part of any folkloric dispute because it itself is not folkloric. I removed your unsourced claims because ARBMAC dictates that no substantive changes be made to such articles without adequate citations. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Amiram Goldblum has been engaging in disurptive editing in the ikipedia article about himself. Using the editing pen name Rastiniak, he just violate dthe 3RR rule, once again. He has also repeatedly posted slanderous statements on Wikipedia about other people. He has violated every rule in the editing book and must be blocked from further editing. The 132.64.165.121 IL, which is his own personal IP at the Hebrew University and has also been used for dirsruptive editing, should also be blocked indefinitely . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.193.217 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP editor, almost certainly a sock of the Runtshit vandal, is edit-warring to introduce clearly defamatory material into the article. It was because of Runtshit's behaviour that an earlier article on Goldblum was deleted. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jat people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Akashasr (talk · contribs)
• Sitush (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Sitush is abusing his admin powers. Choses to revert w/o any explanation.

The 4 diff URL quoted in the 1st line are from the work of a single author. Yet, when I provide multiple sources (6 Diff URL's) to substantiate my claims, he reverts to the old one w/o any balance.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

contacted him on his talk page multiple times. Chose to deflect issue. you can see his contributions. most of the time he reverts other people's contributions rather than constructive edits.

How do you think we can help?

Check the URL's submitted by me and existing ones to decide the 1st line.

I'm not an admin. The matter has been under discussion for little more than a day, and I am awaiting responses per my note on at Talk:Jat people#THIS ARTICLE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.. This request for DR is extremely premature, especially since there are certain to be other people who have not yet commented on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Reporting contributor has now been blocked for 24 hours - breach of 3RR, involving more than just the two of us. - Sitush (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have re-opened the discussion as the 2nd party said it was ok. See my talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing note: I, like Ebe123, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I feel that there has not been sufficient substantial discussion of this matter and, in particular, I feel that Akashasr needs to respond to Sitush's responses made at 13:25 on 2 December 2012 (UTC) here and then see if discussion develops on the talk page before continuing this discussion. I would ordinarily leave this listing open to allow that to occur, but Akashasr is blocked until 00:58 on 6 December and ought to be allowed 2-3 days beyond that to reply there and that's too long to just let this thread sit dormant. Moreover, the issues will probably need to be refined after that discussion has occurred. Either disputant may refile if there is still a need to do so after more talk page discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ruba'i (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Writer83175 (talk · contribs)
• Justice007 (talk · contribs)
• Drmies (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I edited a statement for accuracy, based on scholarly sources: specifically I stated that in Persian verse the ruba'i was written as a couplet divided into hemistiches. When Justice007 asked asked me and I quote "Which books or scholars say 'rubaí contians only two lines'???" I gave him the following references:

"The ruba'i, pronounced rubā'ī, plural rubā'īyāt, is a two-lined stanza of Persian poetry each line of which divided into two hemistiches making four altogether, hence the name ruba'i, an Arabic word meaning 'foursome'" (from Peter Avery's Introduction to 'The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, pg.9)[62]

"Leaving legend aside, it is sufficient to note that from an early date the term rubā'i began to be used for a poem having two main characteristics: (1) two verses (bait) or four hemistiches (mișrā'), with a rhyme scheme aaaa or aaba; (2)The metre known in Arabic terminology as hazaj ...." from the article "The Rubā'ī in Early Persian Literature" (written by L. P. Elwell-Sutton, in The Cambridge History of Iran, v. 4, edited by R. N. Frye, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.634.)[63]

Not only did he refuse to read the sources but he insists that they support his point when they don't and (in an obvious show of bad faith) stated the following:

"It seems to me a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I am not a person who casts pearls before swine. You read only the books but I have experience of both reading and writing classical and very technical rubaiyaat. I do not need your certificate, mind your own business and happy editing as the wiki rules. Justice007 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)"

Thus admits that he does not have any sources to which contradicts my claim, but (out of arrogance) persists in removing accurate information from the webpage.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided the references requested by Justice007, but not only does he persist in ignoring the references but he has brought in other users (specifically Drmies) to intimidate me (even manipulating the page so that Justice007's edits would have to be manually reverted.) I warned Justice007 twice about his vandalism twice and even filed a report -- which the administrator ignored (essentially telling me "its not a good idea to report.")

How do you think we can help?

This seems like more than a a dispute about content, since accurate information is being willfully kept off the page (despite solid evidence.) Therefore, I think these users should be blocked.

• It is very simple thing that cited sources by Writer83175, supporting the edits that were done by me and Spanglej , I explain him saying that " what you refer the source 4 that support us ( me and Spanglej), "known as ruba'i (four line poem) dobaith (two-couplet-poem"). You, suppose as IP 75.24.202.15 did this. Which books or scholars say "rubaí contians only two lines"???." But user did not willing to discuss in a constructive way, he remained reverting to his choice rather than what the source states as here,page.633 and 634 provided himself. and not understanding just himself. There is no matter of compromise, Ruba'i is just four line poem (two-couplet-poem), not less not more, and source is there. Two editors are also agree on this point. I did not invite Drmies, I have just taken a look at his edit. He is very fair, neutral and good faith editor and administrator. I do not think someone will think bad faith of him.!!!. My point is clear, what must I more discuss, if someone is not understanding or not willing to understand. May any volunteer helps that user.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think whoever filed this has dug a deep enough hole. I made one edit to the article to remove some incorrect italics and fix grammar, and get charged with some kind of manipulation? The two sources provided for that sentence which I edited seem to support Justice's edit, as I indicated in my edit summary. Justice did not ask me to step in in anyway, and I considered leaving leaving edit-warring templates for the both of them but there had been enough yelling; I thought a brief edit summary might help to settle it. I was wrong: whoever this filer is, they appear to be an old hand at finding the dramah boards and possible a quick block for combative editing/edit warring. Drmies (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to DRN, I'm a volunteer on the noticeboard. Before commenting on the actual dispute, @Writer83175, on Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific definition, and is usually restricted to blatant nonsense like irrelevant obscenities and crude humor. Content disputes are not considered vandalism, as per WP:NOTVAND, which is why the administrator declined the AIV report. Also, please assume good faith of Drmies, whose only involvement in this dispute so far has been a minor copyedit of the article.--xanchester (t) 06:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Found this, from the Encyclopedia of Islam published by Brill, which defines the ruba'i as a:

"quatrain (plural rubāʿīyāt, from the Arabic rubāʿī, “quadripartite”)... It consists of two distichs (bait) or four hemistichs (miṣrāʿ) rhyming together with the exception of the third (aaba), the third being called k̲h̲aṣī (“castrated”); the two hemistichs of the first bait (muṣarraʿ) must rhyme."

It appears that the ruba'i is a quatrain that can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs. Does that help?--xanchester (t) 10:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely that is it, already has been said in different words, if we fairly understand.Justice007 (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then would phrasing it as "the quatrain can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs" please all the parties? Is that a workable compromise?--xanchester (t) 11:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A note: Writer83175 has contacted me on my talk page, and said that he is abstaining from the DRN discussion and Wikipedia in general.--xanchester (t) 11:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He should not leave the wikipedia, this is just a discussion, disagreement does not mean, we leave wikipedia, and we should not take it personally, we just learning from each other, no one is perfect, I hope he will remain to contribute his knowledege for the readers of the wikipedia.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So now, I think we should close the thread. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I hope he returns. This request should be closed within a day if there are no further replies. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and his input is always welcome. --xanchester (t) 13:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

O.k., I'll concede that the compromise (that the ruba'i could be written either as four full lines or as a couplet divided into four hemistiches) is reasonable. In fact, I italicized "written" in the initial edit to indicate that at least one version of the ruba'i was written as two lines (as has been confirmed above) but nonetheless still had four distinct spoken parts (given the caesuras in the version written as hemistiches.) In terms of leaving Wikipedia, I had decided to leave because it seemed that Justice007 was acting as if he "owned" the Ruba'i article and was the final authority on the subject -- phrases like "mind your own business" would seem to indicate such -- and in such a case, I was quite prepared to say "Fine, it's all yours ...." However, in light of Justice007's graciously extended "olive branch," I will reconsider (although time constraints are now also working against future contributions.) In any case, my apologies to Drmies for misinterpreting his intentions and for any other "unwise" words uttered on my part.Writer83175 (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Writer. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - The wording "the quatrain can consist of two couplets or four hemistichs" seems ambiguous to me. The "or" could mean (a) that 2 couplets = 4 hemis" ; or (b) 2 couplets are not the same as 4 hemis, and a Ruba'i could be one or the other. Maybe the wording should be something like: "Ruba'i consist of four lines. The four lines may be regarded as two couplets of two lines each. Each line may be regarded as a hemistich." Or something like that. Non-poetry readers (and I'm one of them) will need it spelled out to them. --Noleander (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone clarify the wording "with rhymes at the middle and end of each line"? I'm not sure what that means: The article says the rhyme pattern is AABA. Those are the ends of the four lines, right? But there are 4 additional rhymes in the middle of each line"? So is the rhyming pattern MA, MA, MB, MA? Does the "middle" rhyme match or not match the end rhyme? If someone could update the article to make that clearer, that would be great. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My note

• Actually article Ruba'i is very poor, wrong and not reliable. Basically Ruba'i belongs to Persia and its metres ( Beher) had been created by a non-Arab poet Abul Hassan Rodeki (some writers add more names) and that was also brought into practice by non-Arab poets. Urdu, (Hindi) poets followed them. Ruba'i (quatrain) has especial metres containing 24 categories (one can say classes or branches too). Ruba'i can only be composed in those especial metres, not any other normal metre, if it is so, that means that is not Ruba'i. Ruba'i is consist of only four lines, its two lines called (Sehr),Stanza. Ruba'i's first and second line must be end in rhyme (example-as behold and cold.), third without rhyme, but within 24 especial metres, that can not be changed, and forth line again in the selected rhyme,but that forth line (misra) contains high, strong and complete and deep meaning, that must be related with above three lines. There should be addressed only one point or subject, not as like ghazals or other forms of the poetry have. As a poet myself, as I have written in my books, and as I have read in few old academic and classic books (that I have in my library).That is the exact description and definition of the Ruba'i in Urdu, Hindi and Persian, I do not know about English Rubaí that in which metres it is composed?. One should and must know that similarly there is qat'aa that also contains four line but it is not composed in especial metres as Ruba'i. Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing notice: This discussion appears to be stale and the listing editor has not edited Wikipedia in several days after indicating that he no longer intends to edit Wikipedia. I propose to close it as stale/resolved 24 hours after the time stamp on this posting, unless someone wishes to discuss it further. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• avoiceformen.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Users involved

• Ethicalv (talk · contribs)
• Beetstra (talk · contribs)
• Hu12 (talk · contribs)
• A. B. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I've asked that avoiceformen.com be removed from the spam-blacklist. The Houston, TX based site was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I argued that banning such an important website for the improper behavior of an unrelated user is analogous to banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist is important because I've set about documenting the "manosphere" from a neutral POV. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction and against men's rights activists, it is not a single purpose issue. As the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons I responded on various talk pages that: Avoiceformen.com has been stated by the Southern_Poverty_Law_Center (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in having been mentioned in mainstream media publications like the Huffington Post, and Business Insider.

I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I've clearly stated I don't intend to represent the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, as valid, or to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere.

I intent to represent the manosphere's claims only as their own. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for it's own opinions. Since a reliable source says avoiceformen.com is part of the manosphere which is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The matter has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The discussion has been one sided. I have rebutted the arguments given for blacklisting with carefully referenced grounds. The other side has simply exercised their unilateral power to close the discussion with only a superficial consideration, and in some cases no consideration, of my arguments. I'd like assistance in encouraging this matter be resolved appropriately and collaboratively.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a response to my specific arguments which I believe clearly have merit. I would like some assistance to avoid discussions becoming one-sided and then being closed down in such an authoritarian manner. I would like the interpretation of the wikipedia rules clarified in this case so that the efforts of rule abiding wikipedia editors like myself to create neutral, objective, informative articles will dispel the broad perception in the "manosphere" of wikipedia's censorship.

Meta discussions about Wikipedia governance are not appropriate for this page. Please open a discussion at WP:AN to present your appeal of argument. Hasteur (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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