Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 25
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
Anthropology, Public Anthropology
![]() | No talk page discussion, as required by this noticeboard. Will discuss on listing editor's talkpage. — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
As an instructor at a university, I have my upper-level Anthropology Theory students writing Wikipedia entries for their class assignment. In all of the cases so far, their entries have been removed. It seems surprising that this should happen in every instance, and I am inquiring if this is a common occurence. For the Anthropology entry, we have tried to add material to it, and a user Maunus has taken down everything within 24-48 hours. We have gone to the talk page, and tried to resolve it. He has also personal message'ed one of the students with his concerns about our entry, which could be seen as an intimidation tactic. At this point, no one is able to add anything to the Anthropology main page. The talk page for Anthropology lists concerns with Maunus up to a year ago, so this has been a long-term prolbem. We have also added some material under Public Anthropology. It was removed immediately, as well. This one seems like it could be a bot problem, and we will try again. Users involved
While Maunus is trying to maintain material at an appropriate academic level, he might perhaps be using this critique to his own advantage rather than on academic merit alone. As a scholar, with a Ph.D, and over ten years of university teaching, I feel that I have assessed the academic merits of their entries and that they are suitable.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Some guidelines on contributing Wikipedia could include the stats on how common it is for an entry to be removed. At this point, our stats on trying to enter material make it a frustrating task. Lpetrillo (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC) Anthropology, Public Anthropology discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
|
User:184.2.174.194
![]() | Duplicate thread of above Marek Edelman article. Please do not upen duplicate threads for the same dispute Hasteur (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Error: The overview field is required. Please fill in the overview field with an outline of the dispute, with diffs if appropriate. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
184.2.174.194 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC) User:184.2.174.194 discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 5, 2012 at 22:48 (UTC) because a third opinion has already been requested Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
|
College Prowler
![]() | Collegeprowlermktg blocked. Feel free to come back if you have more problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Repeated section blanking and promotional language edits by what appears to be the company's own staff Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Reverted edits, identified as vandalism. Left note on user's talk page.
Protect page or block user. Shorn again (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC) College Prowler discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
According to me it is a general case of vandalism, I'd prefer block. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Electromagnetic radiation
![]() | Listing editor not interested in participating in Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's norms, further discussion is pointless. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Dispute overview
The page contains a comment which is incorrect and not based on any citations or research. I updated it with references to peer-reviewed journals. The "editor" (who has no expertise in this field) removed my edits with his original, incorrect comments. The reason he gave for doing it is that my comments were based on original research. Here is the full discussion:
Effectively a piece of text backed up by a large number of cited peer-reviewed research papers has been removed by the "editor" and replaced by a comment which is incorrect and which shows a complete lack of understanding of the field. Quite why a seminal paper from 1979 in a respectable international journal would be inappropriate is entirely unclear. It is abundantly clear that the editor is abusing his position to censor material which he doesn't like and has no respect for the credibility of Wikipedia. Users involved
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
I modified my first text to include more specific references. Clerk Comment: Discussion is on User Talk:TopGarbageCollector
Find an editor for this page who respects Wikipedia's principles, rather than somebody who is using his position as a little ego trip. TopGarbageCollector (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Electromagnetic radiation discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Thank you for coming and using DRN. First of all, as part of the board's rules, is not a place to deal with disputes purely about user conduct issues. However, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes. Therefore, can we stop the accusations of bad faith and abuses of power? Secondly, is there a reason why the suggestion about the subpage Electromagnetic radiation and health is not an appropriate location for the content you would like to add? As the article is of significant importance to multiple projects taking a radical change for almost any reason is strongly discouraged. The only thing that bugs me, as an editor/reader, is that there's not a "Main Article ..." link to the subpage in the section.Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC) There is a major mistake in this page: EMF does *not* affect organisms primarily through a heating effect. I tried to correct it and my corrections were vandalized by the editor. Unfortunately the editor has no background in this field and doesn't understand the research I have cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
First, I've just formatted a citation needed request for our new user on Electromagnetic radiation - Biological effects. The material I reverted earlier was supported by two primary research articles and by one article from the 1970s - rather dated it seems for "new" information. I suggested the content might better belong on the health effects article rather than the main article as that seems the preferred location. If added there, a brief note could be added in the main article. Vsmith (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 6, 2012 at 21:44 (UTC) because the listing editor has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to resign from editing. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | Withdrawn by listing editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 00:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A new editor seems to be under a serious misapprehension about what Wikipedia is: they think it's for listing clubs, sports activities, names of houses, etc. in articles about middle schools. They don't seem to know what reliable sources are or what is and isn't encyclopedic. Perhaps one of you can have a look, and maybe explain to them why WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is a valuable essay. Users involved
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
See edit history, and user talk page.
You can explain what Wikipedia is. I'm not getting a lot of help here, though there is one other user (User:Ducknish) who knows that this isn't right, but since they falsely accused me of vandalism they can't back down. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Welsh Valley Middle School discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Clerk Comment: First thing. Both Editors need to step away from mass adding/deleting content from this page. This is non-negotiable. The next person who add/deletes large sections of content from this article is getting hauled up before the edit warring noticeboard and a request for page protection will be filed as both of you are edit warring. Hasteur (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:SCHOOLCRUFT is an essay. It thus can be completely ignored.Curb Chain (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Mantas Šiaučiūnas
![]() | Closing as: Outside of English Wikipedia's pervueCurb Chain (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
A user named "Creative" has deleted a biography of a living person, which is an abuse of administrator rights, since there are many biographies of various people on Wikipedia. Please, comment or send a feedback to [email protected]. Users involved
The delete notice is the following (in Lithuanian): 21:16, 27 kovo 2012 Creative (Aptarimas
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Yes
To restore the article or restrict user's Creative rights. 193.219.137.245 (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Mantas Šiaučiūnas discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hello there, and thank you for posting here. This appears to be a complaint about lt:Mantas Šiaučiūnas. As such the engligh language Wikipedia does not have any impact on the Lithuanian wikipedia's policies/editing. Hearing no reasonable objections, this post will be closed down in 24 hours as it's not even something that we could resolve. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
|
List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia
![]() | Suggestion to open an RFC on this issue to evaluate if a new consensus has formed. Prior to that, the existing consensus abides. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dispute overview
a discussion has been going on about the convenience of using simple list or tables in this 2 articles. i argue that simple lists are easier to read and edit, while MarcusBritish and Dpaajones favor the use of tables. MarcusBritish and i have been the most involved in the discussion [2], but we have reached a point where he doesn't want to argue anymore and to just leave the article the way it is, which is the state he favours. Users involved
Resolving the dispute
i explained the benefits of lists over tables in this type of lists and because MarcusBritish insisted on having a table i suggested a middle point: a table with less text than the current table has, in order for it to be more easy to read like lists are but that it also would allow to have some aesthetic value and a bit more info as MarcusBritish wanted.
mediate to allow us to reopen a discussion based in arguments and to reach a consensus. check the discussion page and you will see how arguments have been substituted by accusations of all kind. we need a third party without relation to this discussion to help us see the blind spots of the debate we were missing, Andres rojas22 (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
List of wars involving Great Britain, List of wars involving Russia discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
This is a waste of editor's time. Andres simply cannot accept that his method of converting populated tables to basic menu-like lists was border-line disruptive, cutting the GB article down from ~46,000 to ~6,000 characters in one swoop [3] with no regard for the stability or previous input by other editors, and war editing over this format. The matter was discussed between himself and Dpaajones based on the false premise that basic lists offer more functionality (see User talk:Andres rojas22#Explain yourself). Dpaajones invited uninvolved editors via WT:MILHIST due to the continued reverts. I performed a WP:BRD revert and updated the article from bog-standard HTML table to Wikitable and various MOS tweaks. Several MILHIST members support the Wikitable format and not the List. Andres refuses to accept the format, or content. He has not given a good account of the benefits of lists in this case, and if he believes he has, they do not amount to the reasons why a table is required here, per WP:WHENTABLE. The content is multi-level and requires several columns. Andres "proposal" to reduce the content to 3 columns is nonsense: 3 column tables might just as well be presented as lists, so it's really a motion to herd the article in the wrong direction, i.e. quality assessment would degrade, to a very basic layout, with loss of valuable data. Andres has yet to explain why he prefers this minimalist approach, only saying that the data is in each linked article. Firstly, articles are not self-referring and do not refer to other articles, only wikilink. Second, the format he chooses looks little more than a disambiguation index page, and is not good quality. Finally, researchers should not be expected to have to go through dozens of articles to learn the specifics when they can be summarised on one page, in a table, as is the point of such articles. The article is short on citations, but that does not make it "wrong", simply requiring further development. Such articles can lead to FL quality, whilst basic lists rarely exceed the "junior encyclopedia" mentality to be rated as anything above List/Start class. If we're supposed to be developing an encyclopedia here, reverting articles from multi-column cross-referenced to tables into bullet-point lists is backwards, and does not help anyone. It not not aid readers, does not advance Wikipedia, does not result in high quality lists. The format and arguments presented by Andres are misguided and ill-suited to the articles in question and he simply does not accept that the majority have spoken in favour of the present format. The consensus, or support for tabular format over basic list, by MILHIST members speaks for itself, a DR cannot be used to override the views of several other editors against one editor who simply has an WP:IJDLI agenda against tables and flagicons. His claim that I am opposed to basic Lists is also invalid, I am simply opposed to their use in this instance, and reducing articles to low-level organisation. As I said, the conclusion has already been reached, if Andres feels the need to revert the format again, against current consensus, I will simply raise it with WP:AN as a war editing issue. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Regarding:
I am not going to waste any more of my time on this matter - I ask that any arbitrator read: Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format .2F content. Furthermore, there are several more editors who agree with my stance on this matter, and none who agree with User Andres (this can be seen on the talk page of the British article, which I have just wikilinked). Thank you. David (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
History lessens normally gives the start and end (death) date for both wars and people. The previous Great Britain webpage give the dates this allows the reader to see where wars overlap something that the articles on each war rarely say. Who was on each side and the out come are interesting. The information is a summary that permits the effect of the war to be determined. Andrew Swallow (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
David Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, you have avoided discussion since the issue started and tough the original discussion was between me and you, MarcusBritish has been the only editor truly committed to discuss, until recently at least which is the reason i opened this request.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Next, we have Andres's argument that using tables makes the list look cluttered, and the other editors' argument that not using tables leaves out useful information. I think both of these arguments are valid, and I'm not aware of anything in policy that would guide us towards choosing one over the other. The only policy that applies here that I know of is that we must follow consensus. MarcusBritish made the insightful point, however, that we should consider how best to get the list to featured list status. If we look at the featured list criteria, we can see that criterion 5a is: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." So it seems that using tables would be more likely to get the list to featured list status than not using them. Whether this criterion is fair or not is open to debate, but it seems to be a good reason to use tables in absence of other guidance. Having said this, in the end it will be consensus that decides what ends up on the page. Contrary to Andres's comment above, we do not do arbitration on this noticeboard. We cannot make any binding decisions here, I'm afraid. If people's opinions don't change, then to get a clear decision on what to do it would be necessary to take this question to an RfC. However, given the number of editors in favour of using tables so far, I'm not sure that an RfC would have a great chance of being successful. Andres, it's up to you if you would like to try or not, but you should be prepared for the fact that things might not go the way you want them to. Because this is a collaborative project, there are times when you will not be able to get your way. It might be that this is just one of those situations where you have to let things go. Let me know if you have any questions about this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
--Andres rojas22 (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Section breaki have agreed on the use of table, not b the table's virtues but onl as a compromise, but with a couple of changes:
do you agree?--Andres rojas22 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
t
Blend? I think you'll find that I made a distinction, and that once consensus favours a particular choice, any soul editor going against the consensus would be claiming ownership, possibly. What we are discussing now is neither unique nor new, as it was raised in your initial discussions with other editors, that you wanted to minimise the content, reducing it to something more functional, apparently, therefore the views of other editors that the table is appropriate also includes its current content. The matter of what you want to change incorporates your initial views that the table contains more information than you would prefer. Therefore I am requesting that you discuss the matter with a wider array of editors, and not just myself. This is nothing to do with private property or trespassing, this is to do with you claiming that you are making "unique" changes, when in fact you are wanting to make the same content reducing edits as before, only within the table layout. Trying to WP:WIKILAWYER yourself around the matter does not change the fact that your proposals should be discussed, before resorting to these subjective edits. Please follow simple community procedure, and stop trying to act of your own accord, aka WP:POVPUSHing as I have no interest in this repeated circular debate about what you want. The matter is unbecoming, and frankly, you are selfish to disregard the comments being left by editors on the talk page, and below. The constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude is now very irritating. So I'll put it like this: The community rejected your list format, and may potentially reject your minimal Outcome format. So in order to avoid having the article reverted, to avoid war editing, escalation to lengthy RFC, and other further time consuming efforts, it is in your and wiki's best interests to discuss the proposal with interested editors. If you don't feel you should have to that's your choice, just don't be surprised if the removal of a lot of text gets reverted because you failed to seek consensus and give suitable reasons to remove so much content that may be relevant to others. WP:CONSENSUS is exactly the policy that applies here, despite your belief that Wiki is free for anyone to edit, that does not mean an editor can force their revised opinions when other editors have rejected their earlier attempts, and expect them to be welcome. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Andres, there are six editors disagreeing with you in the discussion at Talk:List of wars involving Great Britain#List format / content and none agreeing with you. I think it's time you admit consensus is not on your side and Drop the Stick. Mojoworker (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Could a clerk please review this DR from the "Section break", comment, advise, conclude and close the matter. I believe it is becoming too circular, and that Andres' WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT stance is becoming excessive and leading to blatant WP:GAMING and/or proposed WP:POINTY behaviour. Some formal intervention is required here, possibly Admin warning, as he clearly won't listen to reason, no matter how many policies/guidelines I refer to, and he remains a proverbial "bull in a china shop" intent on making edits without even seeking a minimal form of consensus. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish[chat] 03:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Section break: ReassessmentComment by Sleddog116: I regularly assist here on DRN, and I would like to comment based on my assessment of the situation. Okay, it seems that, unfortunately, discussion has broken down here a bit. I will admit that I am not entirely "up" on the issue at hand (I couldn't really get through all of the text above; it was very long and involved, and I don't have the time at the moment to fully review it), but I get the basic gist of it. I don't think we need administrative action yet, so I'd like for us to hang on here for a little while. Even if this doesn't work, I still think that the Mediation Cabal would be a much better avenue at this point than going to ANI - ANI discussions are rarely very pleasant for anyone involved, so it's better to avoid that if at all possible. To Andres rojas22: As I mentioned above (before the section break), please remember that consensus can change. Just because something was "settled" a long time ago does not mean that it is not open for debate. On Wikipedia, nothing is ever set in stone. If the broader community is by and large rejecting your viewpoint, don't be a crusader. If you repeat the same argument, you get the same answers. In other words, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten." If you want to make your case more effectively, bring new arguments, not the same ones. To MarcusBritish: Please assume good faith. Just because Andres does not seem to be accepting consensus does not mean that he intends harm to the project. In the above discussion, you have turned the discussion on the editor rather than addressing the merits of the edits.
Now, let's back up, stay cool, and try to resolve this without having to go to unpleasant means. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Sleddog, i'm gonna try to sum my answer, we started a discussion on April 25 as to whether to change the article's formatting from tabular to stand alone list and we agreed on keeping it a table but reducing excessive content. now instead of finishing up to discuss and implement the changes he agrees on the changes but come with the marvelous idea that they don't be implemented. that i must go to the talk page of the article and seek to discuss it with editors who have nothing to do with this discussion because he claims previous editors have some kind of rights to be consulted before i change their edits. putting an obstacle on the implementation of changes to which we had agreed "where a war ended in a treaty it is not always necessary to detail each and every clause of the treaty, even in summary form, a wikilink to the treaty should suffice, and possibly one or two main points per outcome, nothing trivial, may be required in some but not all cases where the result, as part of the outcome, is of great importance to British or even world history, e.g. Napoleonic Wars, WWI, WWII, etc." ([6]. -Andres rojas22 (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Question to All Participants I've been marginally been keeping an eye on this thread. I would like to ask, is there some sort of resolution we can implement? A widely advertised RfC curated by WP:MILHIST seems to be the only way to determine what the consensus currently is. As such I recomend the following points
Short of this numbered list, the only way to get this resolved appears to be WP:MEDCAB,WP:MEDCOM, or the nuclear option WP:ARBCOM. Know that if ArbCom is chosen there will be no winners, only people who loose a little bit less. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
As the conversation has stagnated, this thread may be closed in 72 hours from 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC) with the above proposed RfC for generating the consensus unless strenous objections to this closure method occur.Hasteur (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Amber Rose
![]() | Closed as resolved, see my comment of 17:27, 9 April 2012, in discussion, below. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
Amber Rose is in a Youtube video stating that she was a stripper. I've been told by a senior wikipedia editor here: Because we don't allow youtube videos as reliable sources, it would only be of use if it was Lola herself saying "I was a stripper".--Jac16888 Talk 00:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC) I would also like to point that my edits are being targeted because I put in a RFA as well. Users involved
Yes. Resolving the dispute
Yes I've had multiple discussions with Jac16888, Bwilkins, and Youreallycan. After I received no further responses from anyone I decided to add the information again and some disgruntle editors were able campaign for me the get temporarily banned because of edit. Again I believe Bwilkins is highly biased when it comes to my edits because I applied to be an administrator (see his talk page regarding my RFA).--Ron John (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC) I believe his feelings are getting the best of him and his duties as a wikipedia administrator.
Tell us if an youtube video of someone saying they were stripper be used as a source on wikipedia. Ron John (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Amber Rose discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
I am a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN. If you will search the archives at the reliable sources noticeboard you will find that there is general agreement that YouTube is not a reliable source and is questionable as even an exterior link. In that light, and in light of the fact that there are other more clearly reliable sources for the information, I'm going to close this thread in twenty-four hours. The other matters raised by the listing editor are conduct matters which are not appropriate for this noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) If there is no response, this thread will be closed 24 hours after this time: April 9, 2012 at 17:27 (UTC) because of the reasons set out in my last comment, above. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Closure endorsed Filer has a history of disruption and ignoring policies and guidelinesCurb Chain (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England
![]() | Resolved, for now. Party requested closure and 24-hours' notice has been given. If the dispute continues, (in particular with edit warring) please report to administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
It all began with a request for Passive smoking to be moved to Second-hand smoke (see: Talk:Passive_smoking#Move.3F). I was one of those who opposed. I then discovered that since December 2011 User:Hypocaustic had been systematically changing "passive smoking" to "second-hand smoke", and "smoking ban" to "smoke-free regulations" on many articles (see e.g.: [7], [8]) — he subsequently used the more frequent occurrence of "his" term as a justification in the move request, an issue I raised at the time. The move request was declined. Things went downhill on 26 February, when the user moved Smoking ban and many related pages unilaterally, and move-warred with two editors when they attempted to revert him (see: user's move log). Eventually he gave up and disappeared for a month after an experienced editor criticized his edits to Smoking ban, which is a semi-protected article (see: [9]). Reappeared last week, and has tried to copy/paste articles from one page to another, causing attribution problems (see: content and edit histories of Passive smoking vs Second-hand smoke, and Smoking ban in England vs Smoke-free law (England)). I reverted his most recent changes but he reverted me back, calling my edits "vandalism" (see: edit summaries at [10], [11]). I then approached the admin who had closed the original move request for advice, and he directed me here. Entirely separately, the user has changed several articles from US to UK English, and then reverted editors who try to change it back. I have warned him about this, and he seems to know the rules (see: this diff (where he warns another user about changing from one style to another), but still makes the changes regardless. See e.g.:
Users involved
(last three editors are only marginally involved, compared to Hypocaustic and myself)
Yes.
Resolving the dispute
Talk:Smoking_ban#New_title.3F, User talk:Hypocaustic (now blanked), User talk:Favonian
Explain to User:Hypocaustic what consensus is, why copy/paste moves are wrong, why WP:RETAIN exists; restore content of pages at Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England per the GFDL requirements. Cross porpoises (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Passive smoking, Smoking ban in England discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
Thanks for bringing this to the attention of a wider group of Wikipedians. There seem to be two or three different issues or concerns here, all of which seem to have presented a risk of unhelpful disputes (or even 'edit wars') and some of which may perhaps offer some wider learning for phrasing of WP guidance. I'll do my best to list these and explain the situation, as far as I understand it. 1. Smoke-free laws / smoking ban. Some time back, I initially made what I have to concur was an error in how I interpreted the guidance to 'be bold', by carrying out some swift move-and-redirect edits on grounds which appeared, at least from a technical standpoint, to be uncontroversial. We got into what looked perilously near to an edit war, and I did indeed pull back from involvement for a while to let tempers cool. What the sometimes heated debate around this suggested was that some contributors are motivated to 'defend' explicit references to bans because this makes it easier to argue against such measures (essentially bans are presented as illiberal a politically 'bad thing'); I don't know if that's part of this specific complainant's concern so this is an observation rather than accusation, but it does seem to have clouded the conversation a little further. What I have endeavoured to do more recently is gradually improve the clarity with which Wikipedia defines, and distinguishes, both terms - rather than getting into an either/or dichotomy, or sudden 'big bang' edits. I'm sure I haven't done that absolutely perfectly and would very much welcome input from fellow contributors to strengthen the content, but I do indeed think that knee-jerk reverts of careful and considered edits are rather close to vandalism, much as I regret having to level such a charge. 2. Second-hand smoke / passive smoking. I should probably emphasise at this point that tobacco is not the only subject in the world I'm interested in! However, the picture here is rather simpler. I initially proposed a straightforward move of the old 'passive smoking' article to 'second-hand smoke'; the discussion around this revealed a robust intellectual case for doing that, but there were not a sufficient number of respondents to achieve much of a quorum and no consensus to move was reached. I nevertheless observed the group conclusion, refrained from imposing a simple move/redirect and returned to this particular topic subsequently when it became clear that the two terms, although obviously related, were importantly distinct and different in their meanings. So, as things now stand, we now have a page both for the older term, passive smoking and the currently recognised term, second-hand smoke, with some explanatory text on both pages (and mutual links) to make the relationship clear. I honestly think that, for now, this is the most elegant solution and probably the one most useful for readers. However, I sense that part of the objection raised here may be that some text explaining the scientific and regulatory detail appears on just one of those pages, thus causing the complainant to be concerned that a move had been made 'under the radar'; that certainly wasn't the intention, but thoughts on how to positively respond would be welcome. It seems a less than ideal use of the bandwidth to simply reproduce text on both pages, but there is perhaps scope to produce more tailored content so as to ensure that both terms/pages have a fuller 'body' if this is desired. 3. Varieties of English. Like many contributors and editors, I think, I try to sustain and improve the consistency and accuracy of spelling, phraseology and punctuation as I go along. Because I was trained in a specific variety of English, I'm sure it's highly likely that I have, on occasion, erred in changing a spelling which was arguably not actually incorrect, but simply in a different tradition. If that's happened, it has been unintentional and I'm grateful for support in addressing it. On the one clear occasion I can recall where the complainant here did challenge me along these lines, I followed the 'ENGVAR' guidance and identified alternative phraseology which was less subject to transatlantic disagreements in the first place, although that seems not to have satisfied him or her unfortunately. Does this guidance perhaps need to be clearer? Where there is felt to be an issue about retaining the variety of English used by the very first contributor, could or should there be a more visible way of indicating which this is? Thoughts welcome. I've done what I can to enhance the resources which the encyclopaedia offers on the first two points, and would like to propose a moratorium to allow time for other Wikipedians to assist and/or comment. I'm not sure if there's already a convention on this, but it would certainly seem sensible for Cross Porpoises and I to be 'hands off' as regards those specific pages for a week or two if both agree. Thanks, in advance, for your help.Hypocaustic (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC) CommentMy involvement in this dispute involved Hypocaustic's edits to Smoking ban. Hypocaustic has an issue with some of the terminology used, and technically speaking he may have a point. However, my position is that, per WP:COMMONNAME, Wikipedia should prefer the more commonly known term, the one most likely to be understood by readers. The subtle shade of difference between "smoking ban" and "smoke free law" is not a reason to change everything and the article itself makes what it means clear. I think all involved in discussions regarding what Hypocaustic wished were ready to hear what he had to say. Discussion was cordial, despite Hypocaustic repeating his changes in apparent attempts to force the issue. At the end I thought that Hypocaustic had amicably agreed to accept consensus in February and leave the article as was. Discussions have not been helped by his non-neutral stance on the issue and his belief that there is some kind of Wikipedia conspiracy by tobacco supporters to favour "ban", because it helps them to portray the measures as oppressive. I can't see any evidence of this and his repeated reference to it sails very close to violating WP:AGF. "Ban" is used because that is what sources most commonly use, it's as simple as that. I believe Hypocaustic's latest edits to be disingenuous. He knows what he wishes to do is against prior consensus, so coming back for another go a couple of months later in the guise of being bold is at best misguided, at worse mischievous. If he thinks he has a new compromise that could satisfy everyone, then he could raise it on a talk page first. As it is, I don't think he is offering anything new, just another approach to the same changes. I also think his work on Passive smoking and Second hand smoke is a textbook example of POV forking and an attempt to bypass consensus in the previous move discussion. Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related topics simply because one editor doesn't like the name. Any hair-splitting necessary between "Passive smoking" and "second hand smoke" can be handled within the one article. I don't think his changes in spelling are any big deal, and am happy to accept he did not set out to do these deliberately. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Section breakClerk's Comment/(Comment from uninvolved editor) Other than edit warring and some discussion on the article talk page and user talk page, there's been no attempt to resolve the dispute. As a prerequisite to the dispute resolution noticeboard, there has to be talk page discussion. I think it was inappropriate to assume bad faith of Hypocaustic by constituting his/her edits as "vandalism". I think the parties can work from the merge RfC and see what kind of consensus there is and work from there. If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 21:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC) Clerk comment This looks like a behavioural problem, on the part of user:HypocausticCurb Chain (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
How is it a merge request, and not a page move? Before Hypocaustic copy/pasted the content, Passive smoking looked like this. Second-hand smoke looks like this. Same images, same section headings, same references and citations. Is it really that easy for an editor with an agenda to run around consensus after being declined at Wikipedia:Requested moves? I see lots opposing or criticizing Hypocaustic both here and on talk pages, and no-one supporting him. Cross porpoises (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC) On Second-hand smoke, He has edit warred to remove the merge request template with two different users (see: [12] and [13]), even calling it "vandalism." Hypocaustic acts all nicey-nicey and verbose on talk pages and this noticeboard, but its a different story if youre trying to edit with him. Have you looked at the page history of Smoking ban from Feb 26th-28th? [14]. Thats been his typical behaviour while he accuses other people of "POV-pushing" and "bad faith." Cross porpoises (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't come to this noticeboard to get permission to start a discussion. I'm a grown woman, I can do that all by myself. Citing Wikipedia policies to back up my opinion? I came here because a user violated Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text by copy-pasting Passive smoking into Second-hand smoke and Smoking ban in England into Smoke-free law (England). (Wikipedia:Copyrights is "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations.") Then edit-warred in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Multiple editors have criticized his edits and/or conduct (see: Escape Orbit [15], Curb Chain [16], me [17], Wikophile [18]). You say Hypocaustic has faulted before, but now is willing to collaborate. Let him demonstrate this by undoing those past faults and restoring Passive smoking and Smoking ban in England to the way they were. Otherwise it will look to me like he does not see his edits as faults which need fixing. Cross porpoises (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the actions which could reasonably be described with the benefit of hindsight as faults (i.e. the initial page moves without consensus) have already been undone, Whenaxis. What we're left with look like some genuine differences of 'editorial' opinion. Litigious language is unlikely to be helpful; there are plenty of WP policies suggesting a different approach too, but generating added conflict here is evidently not going to get us far. The offer of collaboration was real, but I respectfully decline to participate further in a discussion which appears at risk of intensifying, rather than resolving, a dispute. Realistically, we are left with two broad options: to return to detailed discussion of improvements to articles on related talk pages and keep building and developing consensus, or for those concerned to just walk away and get on with something else. That's a matter for individuals to decide upon for themselves, so either way I suggest we close this discussion here and move on. Thanks to all who have contributed for your time and input - and I really do mean all.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis, I was going to go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but User:Favonian said I should start here. I will go there next since User:Hypocaustic has now demonstrated his position. I will also try to fix the pages one more time, but I expect he will continue his edit war. Cross porpoises (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Hydranencephaly
![]() | No talkpage discussion as required by this noticeboard. Will drop a note on listing editor's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dispute overview
User without a talk page deleting and replacing external link without explanation. Has done blanking also without explanation. Users involved
The problem of link deletion and blanking have been documented on talk page of the article for some time. Without a user talk page not sure how to resolve this other than to continue editing article and restoring deleted link.
Not yet.
Resolving the dispute
Do not know how to contact other user via Wikipedia. No talk page. Not sure what to do.
Please advise how to continue. Neuronormal (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC) Hydranencephaly discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
You can create her page. Red links mean that the page has not yet been created, but I am not sure about the whole auto confirmed thing, but I think you can create pages.Curb Chain (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
|
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate)
![]() | Keep working on the draft and collaborate with the others to improve the cluttered list! If there are any issues, please try a RfC. Closing as resolved and 24-hours' notice provided. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Dispute overview
List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) is/was a very large article with a very large and cumbersome notes column. User talk:This, that and the other (unrelated to this conflict) suggested on the talk page that the notes section be removed all otgether because all the information there is in each general's respective article. I (User: Brightgalrs) did just that, and went through removing the notes section among other changes. User: IcarusPhoenix undid my revision and posted a message on my wall. This conversation followed. Users involved
I feel as though IcarusPhoenix is nonchalantly undoing my edit without the intention of making the article better at all.
Yes.Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolving the dispute
I've initiated the third opinion step here and posted on the WikiProject Military history talk page here
Mediate this argument and end the edit war. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC) List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate) discussionDiscussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.
"Imagine if you will that you had done the same amount of work that you just did on these articles, but came back and did that same work several dozen times... and then someone came out of nowhere and, without discussing it with anyone else, eliminated massive swaths of it." (Posted here by IcarusPhoenix) Icarus, do you feel that my revisions are wrong simply because you put effort into what I deleted? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Note: Please note than [19], [20], [21], and [22] constitutes as campaigning per WP:CANVAS, due to the unneutral accusational tone of the messages, i.e. "As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism." Icarus is advised to read WP:VANDAL as removal of content, with Good Faith intents does not constitute as vandalism, by any standards. Would advise Brightgalrs that if he feels Icarus has sought to cast unfair claims against him to raise the matter with WP:ANI, as wide-spread accusations of vandalism are not tolerated, generally. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
IcarusPhoenix (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Section breakIcarusPhoenix, unfortunately, the consensus is against your recommendation of refactoring the "Notes" section. Majority of the editors want it completely absent from the article. And MarcusBritish has brought some good points about how the note that you left on the editors' talk pages were not neutral, in the future, I ask you to avoid such circumstances as it may appear as canvassing even if you don't mean it to be. In addition, just pushing the blame on other people as to the failure of the resolution of the dispute is not the way to resolve the dispute. Perhaps, Donner60 and IcarusPhoenix can propose their refactored version of the notes later on the talk page, while we maintain the article without the notes because it is quite heavy on the article and too long for the time being. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 20:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
@Whenaxis: By what means is bias against the Notes unfair? Let's take the very first A entry in the table and his notes as an example. They read:
These have apparently been reduced already, by Donner60. Given that this as American Civil War related, his role as senator is unrelated, it pre-dates the ACW by 5 years, and I don't see why the brother relation matters here. The last four points are the only notes direct related to the ACW. Now, please go to WP:TRIVIA#Example, see this example of what not to do per MOS, and tell me how this table (or Union) is any different? How can these articles ever attain WP:FL standard, for example, when they completely blatantly contradict the requirement which states: "5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages", WP:TRIV being a supplementary. I'm failing to comprehend why articles of such lengthy content should be permitted to go against the universal MOS, and WP:TOOLONG when others are reduced to comply? I know there are some that are necessarily TOOLONG, but that is usually as result of the subject being vast, but in this case it is evident that the Notes, a repetition of content in each General's article, is superfluous, thus creating the TOOLONG result. The solution to both the trivia and length issues is clear. Ma®©usBritish[chat] 00:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Explanations, detailed comments on various points raised, proposals for revisions, possible splitting
|