Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13

Royal Hospital School discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

There is a section in the Royal Hospital School (RHS) article about the Royal Hospital School Association (RHSA), which is an alumni association for RHS. Contained in that section was a statement that leavers from RHS no longer join the RHSA and that RHS no longer collects subscriptions for RHSA. All editors involved in the dispute know this to be true, as the other two are both officers of the RHSA. However, the other two have on several occasions removed this statement without asking for sources or any normal Wiki behaviour. I believe this is because the statement is an embarrassment to the RHSA and the editors therefore have a conflict of interest. The statement is relevant in that it speaks to the current relationship between RHS and RHSA. There has certainly been no question raised as to the truth of the statement.

In addition, both Ian R R and Anthal1845 have persisted in adding their email address into the body of the article inviting those interested in the RHSA to contact them, which is unencylopedic.

Furthermore, in the box on the right to the article were links to two online resources for RHS alumni - the first being the RHSA and the second being a popular and well-established Facebook group called RHS Arms. Ian R R and Anthal1845 have persistently removed the second of these links.

I should state my own conflict of interest. I am an administrator of RHS Arms. Quite separately to that I am a member of RHSA and have been involved for some time in a dispute between members of RHSA and the general committee. However, I believe my edits have at all times been within the wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustResignGC (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am a neutral party in this dispute, and I have never seen the article before, and have no conflicts of interest. This dispute looks like it can be solved quite easily by paying attention to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'll take each of your concerns in turn:

• It is indeed reasonable to remove uncited statements. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability says that any uncited statement may be challenged and removed. However, it may be possible to cite this statement using a primary source such as the school's website (although please note the restrictions on using primary sources outlined on the linked page).
• Email addresses shouldn't go directly into articles, because Wikipedia is not a social network, and also should not be used for promotion.
• The Facebook link shouldn't go in the article, per Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. If it was an official Facebook group of the school itself, then it may be worth including, but the Facebook group of the alumni association does not qualify, I'm afraid. However, it may be possible to link to it indirectly by including a link to the Open Directory Project using the {{dmoz}} template.
• It is fine to have a link to the alumni association website, but this shouldn't go in the infobox. All external links apart from the school's official site should go in the "external links" section at the bottom of the article. Have a look at Wikipedia's guidelines on external links for more advice.

I hope this comment has been helpful! If you have any questions, feel free to ask them below. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, to clarify on that last point, the school's official site should go in both the infobox and the external links section, but not in the article body. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would add that Wikipedia is not the place to continue your real world disagreements. If all of the editors involved had spent their time here in adding proper references, and properly referenced material, to the article, rather than pursuing agenda related to their various conflicts of interests, then the article would not be such a mess. If "GC" is one of the people involved in one of these real world disagreements, then User:JustResignGC will need to get a username change (see Wikipedia:Changing username). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I will cease using that username. I have also found a source for the material. However, I was under the impression that the correct course of action was to add a citation tag? I will tidy the article up as set out above. What is the correct course of action if the behaviour continues? JustResignGC (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited certain sentences on this article because they were demonstrably untrue. For instance it says that "the School has stopped collecting subscriptions", this is not in fact the case as the school is still collecting subscriptions and has no plans to stop over the next two years. It also says that new pupils no longer automatically join the RHSA - this is misleading as they haven't "automatically" joined for decades. Writing it in this way makes it look as if is a recent thing; it isn't and hasn't been for decades. Also one of the "citations" is not openable and is no longer on the website it points to sothat has been removed.

Its a shame that "RHSA Member" hasn't the courage to admit who he or she is instead of hiding behind that name, especially as some of the administrators on RHS Arms Are not RHSA Members. He or she knows who I am yet they haven't the courage to step forward.

Any discussion on the article should take place on the article talk page. For now I will simply point out that some of my edits were reverted AGAIN by User:Ian R R and that this has once again be done with no discussion. In fact, my edits to Ian's talk page have been deleted. If the only way I can engage this user is via the Dispute Resolution page then how the heck are we supposed to collaborate? Surely this user is in contravention of 3RR? (None of the links were broken by the way.)RHSAMember (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian R R (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Some points from both of the last comments.

First, Wikipedia editors do not have to disclose their identities. RHSAMember's previous username was, I felt, provocative, so I suggested a change. They are now using RHSAMember which, in my opinion, is compliant with the username policy (since it indicates they are a single person who happens to be an RHSA member; and does not imply they speak on behalf of the organisation). Incidentally, attempts to "out" the identity of an editor usually lead to the person responsible being blocked from editing.

Since all conflicts of interest have apparently been disclosed, it is irrelevant from Wikipedia's perspective, who exactly RHSAMember is, and whether some, all, or none of RHSAA's members are also members of RHSA.

Ian is fully entitled to delete messages from his own talk page, per WP:BLANKING.

This noticeboard can be used for resolving content issues (i.e., what is in the article) as well as user conduct issues - in fact, content issues are this noticeboard's primary purpose.

I haven't checked whether either of you have broken 3RR, but you should keep an awareness that editing warring the information in and out is not permitted.

I do begin to wonder if the disputed statements about the precise current position of the school with regard to RHSA actually belong in the article at all. If a newspaper (or The Good Schools Guide or something) were to comment on the significance of some change being made, then that would be a lot more convincing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge. In my view Ian R R HAS continued the edit warring. I think the statement is important to set the context for the association today, which is entirely different to what it was in the past. The same reference also spells out that the school's headmaster has resigned as president of the association - would this make good content? Thanks for your help, and apologies for having to resolve this here. RHSAMember (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the article is about the school, not about the association. The school was established more than three hundred years ago; the association was established just over eighty years ago. Perhaps the relationship between the association and the school was different two years ago - or forty years ago - to how it is this year. But equally, perhaps two years from now it will be different again. In the context of the eighty year history (and the three hundred year history) such changes are not very significant. What is significant, and suitable for an encyclopedia, are the basic facts - there is an association, it was established in 1925, it has some thousands of members.

To go beyond those basic facts, I think we need better sources than what we have. The source you're providing is not independent, as it is the website of the organisation itself. The most reliable part of it is the letter from the headmaster (assuming it is quoted correctly), which is careful to emphasise a continued friendly relationship between the school and the RHSA. To find the statements which may be interpreted as supporting the other disputed material, one has to read down through the allegations about pineapples and so forth (which are, seemingly, part of a campaign to encourage members to vote in a particular way in an upcoming election). That is not the best sort of reliable sourcing. Again, if we had reliable independent published sources that mentioned the situation or circumstances, then the case for including the material - based on those sources - would be stronger. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Demiurge. I agree that users should not need to disclose their identity; but unfortunately RHSAMember chose to disclose mine in the edit history page - by adding comments, one of which is bordering on menacing, on the edit history, somehting which I do not even know how to do. My position within the RHSA is well known to RHSA members as a well supported elected official and I will not be pursuing this user within the court system even though I beleive some of his comments are tantamount to making threats, and as such could make him criminally liable. As a member of the RHSA General Comittee (GC) I know my facts are correct as regards the collection of subscriptions. However I am willing to desist from changing the entries anymore as long as RHSA Member gives the same undertaking, and just leave the entry with the facts upon which we are both agreed, also he would have to stop using threats in the edit history page, and remove those threats and comments forthwith.

I believe this to be a fair resolution.

Ian

Ian, no menacing edits were made - that's simply a ridiculous claim and your talk of there being grounds for legal action is nonsense. I said I was watching you, which was intended to be a humourous way of saying that I would keep an eye on your edits - no menace was intended and I don't think any would reasonably be inferred. I will continue to watch you, and I am happy for you to watch me too Ian. I will continue to edit the article - you do not own that section of the article. I accept that the article is about the school and so the Association itself is of only marginal interest and only important information should be included. The Headmaster's resignation may constitute such a fact and is in the HM's letter, so perhaps I will add that if nobody objects. Also , I'd point out that there is other uncited information in the RHSA section at the moment - based on the advice above I think what we need to see is independent evidence (ie not on the Association's own pages) of all of that information (apart from basic stuff such as the name and so on) so that we can get everything to the same level of verifiability. I'll have a look for sources over the next few days, perhaps you could do the same Ian - and then we can delete anything that remains uncited. Hopefully this discussion can now move to the article's discussion page and we can check back with Demiurge if there are any other bones of contention.

Cheers, RHSAMember (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ian, both links appear to be working for me from two separate locations. Can you confirm which you are having a problem with? RHSAMember (talk) 06:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

RHSA Member is clearly not wishing to come to resolution so I will consider my position and what further action to take. He or she is clearly hell bent on his or her course while I am trying to show the facts, facts which as a member of the GC of the RHSA I am more privy to. I will not continue this discussion on these pages and ask that RHSA member emails me - he or she has my emeil address - to resolve this. I would ask that Demiurge puts a block on either of us editing this page to stop this dispute escalating.

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian R R (talk • contribs) 13:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say you are considering "what further action to take" Ian? Which edits of mine do you have a problem with (I've only made one to the article since the discussion above but I can't see what your problem is with it)? And I'll ask again - which link is broken? I do not wish to email you as I do not wish to reveal my true identity. I fear that my position as a member of the RHSA would be put in jeopardy if I did so. If you won't continue the discussion then we will not be able to reach a consensus, which is what Wikipedia is all about. There is no instruction or suggestion above to cease editing the article, and I will not take such an instruction from you. RHSAMember (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid lengthy discussion of the history of the article, because this is (or was) principally a dispute over what content should be in the article, not a dispute about editor conduct. However, it's worth pointing out that you two (and perhaps one or two other people) have been at this same issue for at least the best part of a year now.

Ian, you re-added the email address into the article four times in just over a week, with the third and fourth times being after an experienced editor removed it with an edit summary clearly explaining why it shouldn't be in the body of the article. RHSAMember, your edit summaries have repeatedly focused on addressing people by first names or positions they haven't identified themselves with, telling them what you think of them or their behaviour, and so on - this is unacceptable, edit summaries are intended to describe edits or the reasons for edits.

I don't consider any of the edit summaries to constitute credible threats. In fact I think "I am watching you Ian R R. Please don't remove stuff or I'll have to put a Rockett up you!" is probably the worst there is. Now, this is just how well brought up Englishmen of a certain generation address their peers, and we're far too busy on Wikipedia worrying about how not so well brought up Englishmen of that generation behave, so it's not a grave concern. However, it would be much better to keep that sort of thing in emails or on Facebook, than in edit summaries.

Ian, I'm glad that you've specifically stated that you will not be pursuing court action, however I would still strongly suggest both of you refrain from comments about what conduct you believe is criminal or otherwise actionable. (Or indeed about any "further action" outside Wikipedia.)

If you believe there is information in an edit summary that unreasonably reveals private information about someone, or needs to be suppressed for some other overwhelming reason, then you should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight - be sure to provide a link to a WP:DIFF to identify the exact content.

Ian, to include an edit summary, you simply put text in the box marked "Edit summary" before saving your change to the page.

I don't believe we have independent reliable sources for the headmaster's resignation from the association as President of the association, or for a change in how membership fees are collected, or for the claimed membership number of 3000+. So I believe none of these should be in the article. The question of what external links and email addresses should be in the article, I think we've covered already.

I can't personally block anyone from editing, however given the nature of the dispute and the fact that you both have a conflict of interest, there is some merit in Ian's suggestion that both of you should stop editing the article - or that section of the article - altogether. This may have to be enforced if the dispute continues to deteriorate.

I have no objection to moving further discussion to the article's talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Demiurge. I will take on board your advice on edit summaries, hopefully you can see they were never malicious. To the small group of people who would have been interested in such things the identities of the participants would have been obvious from their chosen user names so I didn't feel I was outing anyone, but I won't do it again. Thank you for pointing out that legal threats are inappropriate and hopefully you will have noted that I never made such a threat, veiled or otherwise, nor would I. I have taken your comments about the article's actual content on board and will edit it to reflect what you have said. I agree that if the disagreement escalates it would be appropriate to prevent either of us editing the article, however I still feel that I should be allowed to edit it in a constructive non-confrontational manner and will aim to do so, let's see how it goes. I would still argue that it is better to correct rather than delete and would ask Ian to edit in that manner. I am very satisfied that whilst I've been far from perfect my edits have always been in good faith (although perhaps not always the edit summaries!) and would be aggrieved if I was prevented from editing the article. RHSAMember (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2011 (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.

Lemonade Mouth discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

• It's alright, this board is a fine place tom come if you're unsure where to go (and was a primary reason I created it.) Having a look at their contributions, they do seem to add a lot of information to the article, perhaps somewhat reduntant or with a few errors. Discussing concerns with certain edits with the particular editor is important. I don't see a 3RR violation, indeed I don't really see any edit warring. I'll add the page to my watchlist and pop a note on their talk page asking them to engage in discussion with you regarding the article. If issues persist, feel free to send me a message on my talk page. Best, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note: After I posted to the IPs talk page, they continued editing the article without discussing the concerns that have been raised by others (including the filer of this thread). I've had the page protected for a day, to try and encourage discussion. If that doesn't work then we will have to explore other options. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• The user edits at predictable times of day (I looked at their contrib history after seeing how many edits they had made to Lemonade Mouth) and it appears that once they figured out they couldn't edit the article (or even without figuring that out), they just went over to editing Terra Nova (TV series) (which is pretty much the only other thing the user has edited) without attempting to discuss about Lemonade Mouth at all or even acknowledging that the message had been received. I'm not even sure they know they're getting the messages. I feel tempted to ask the user to discuss on the talk page in the article itself, but I won't do that because I know I'm not supposed to. - Purplewowies (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2011 (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.

WP:MMANOT, WT:MMANOT discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

Clerk's Comment: BigzMMA, brevity is paramount. Your rambling posts don't really seem to have a point other than to complain that the guideline (Not Policy) is not right. Having read through the talk page I have a couple observations.

1. Please re-standardize your signature as per Wikipedia:SIGNATURE. Having SineBot come behind you to add the Username and Talkpage links is annoying as hell
2. Your first appearance on the talk page appears to be from the 18th of this month. If this is correct, it's been less than a week since you proposed the first changes to your demanding that the page change. Other contributors to the page may be away for Vacation or other personal reasons.
3. As it appears you've participated in other MMA items, it might be a good opportunity to sit down and review WP:N,WP:GNG,WP:POLICIES,WP:BRD, and WP:CONSENSUS.
4. Droping a combative notice on Papaursa the way that you did is almost gaurnteed to not have a colegial interaction, but an adverserial one.

I'll post more discussion once Papaursa responds to your allegations. Hasteur (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Furthermore please read and respond back regarding WP:SOAPBOX as it appears your talk page is being used quite extensively for that purpose to push your POV regarding notability of MMA events/groups. Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that I began writing in there from the 15th November, not the 18th. Also I have legitimate points about this, Papaursa has been fighting me from the beginning of the discussion about changing things for the better. I have used WP:GNG as the base of my case, as he is using his guidelines to determine whether a promotion/fighter is notable, where he chooses to rate someone who has been in the UFC over someone that meets WP:GNG. My argument isn't rambling, but very detailed points as to why these guidelines hasn't been working and it needs to change. The user in question hasn't offered any suggestion as to a way forward with this, instead attacking my suggestions and even me, accusing me of being one minded, and the truth is that this page hardly matters to the main criteria all pages must meet. For this reason I would like to see this guideline either deleted or rewritten as for those who follow this as the system to determine notability, it can be made clear to them that no matter what, as long it meets WP:GNG, it is notable. The page is flawed and the user is enforcing a flawed system on a topic many people are very passionate about. BigzMMA (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From Category:Notability Essays This category lists essays that contain the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikiprojects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. These pages are not policies or guidelines, and editors are free to but not obliged to follow them during XfD's. Please confirm that you have read WP:ESSAY before we continue as you seem to think that this page is a full force policy or guideline. When you work on a collaborative essay, you are supposed to collaborate and not shout "This is wrong and the writer was wrong for having written it.". It's not just one user who is saying no to you, it's several saying that you are not reading it correctly. Elen of the Roads is one of the most levelheaded editors out there and is familiar with many portions of Wikipedia. Heed her advice (and the advice of others) as you are on the path to a short career in WP. Hasteur (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can confirm that I have read WP:ESSAY, I believe that the people who follow this are using it as a means to determine whether pages are notable, which is where my issue is. Because people do use this as a system to determine notability, it should be rewritten so it tones down the high standard that the page implies on MMA topics. I have had numerous pages that meets WP:GNG deleted by the same sort of users who use this guideline to determine 'notable' pages. I'm not saying that I want it changed because I had pages removed by them, but its because it puts other WP:GNG met pages in danger of the guideline's high standards. Also I agree with Elen of the Road, she made a good point about WP:GNG, which has now become the base of my argument against the guideline and the user who created it and is enforcing it. BigzMMA (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider your last posting. If you acknoledge that the item is an ESSAY to help guide discussions regarding this subject area, and not the be-all end all for a Specific Notability Guideline, you have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that it passes the GNG test. The essay in question points back in 2 seperate sections to a less specific guideline (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for the organizations and WP:GNG for the individuals). As before you have said that people are using this essay to definitively shut the case on AfDs. Please provide examples of this. Finally Specific Notability Guidelines (and essays written like them) are designed to have a very narrow window that they apply to so that broader tests like GNG can be used when it doesn't really match the individual guideline. Please do not respond until Paparusa has answered your complaint. Hasteur (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• User Bigzmma has accused me of many things in the past week, so let me deal with them one by one. First, on the notice he placed on my talk page about this he said I "have illegal binding control over" these pages. That's clearly not true since I have no editorial superpowers. Second, he has made about 20 postings about me on various WP pages--the one on his talk page seems to be his favorite. I particularly like his comment "I've never had a problem with taking in other people's opinions." To show this is blatantly false I would refer you to WP:ANI archives 724 and 725, as well as his repeated appealings of his bans (you can find where he removed them on his talk page's history page when the file gets noticeably smaller), and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA. Next, he claims that the MMA notability pages are all my idea. My talk page shows that I was asked to participate in the discussion, some of which can be found at WT:MMANOT and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 5. Looking at WT:MMA and its archives shows that consensus has been the driving force about MMA notability for both organizations and fighters. User Bigzmma has repeatedly rejected consensus and comments/opinions from other editors (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leone and the aforementioned references). Finally, WP:MMANOT clearly says "it is a specific supplement to the overall policy of Wikipedia:Notability relating to mixed martial arts and in no way supersedes it." There are also references to many of the WP notability policies. It also says that essay may be used at AfD discussions. As far as I can tell he's upset with me mainly because I disagree with him and support consensus. Papaursa (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. He was upset at me and wanted to know why I hadn't responded to every point he had made at WT:MMANOT, so I told him the truth. That also seemed to upset him. He shouldn't ask questions if he doesn't want an honest answer. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay I'm going to address that last point first just because it crawls under my skin, which is this thing your saying that your comments 'upsetting me', I asked you to address my points, which many were direct answers to your points and comments, so if anything, it is you that got upset over my comments. Your refusal to answer me was the last straw, in which I messaged different unbiased users to get their opinion of how to take it from there, and left a message to try to have us take a peaceful way of moving forward, yet again you refused to answer me, but I left it 5 days before I brought it on ANI in case it was just that you weren't able to read it within the time. I can take an honest answer, why else did you think I didn't take your answers then?

Now then back from the top. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA, paragraph 6, User:Osubuckeyeguy says this 'The question isn't whether the org employs a few notable fighters, it is whether the organization itself receive coverage by independent sources and passes the other criteria outlined at WP:MMANOT.' And then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter), in which Papaursa starts the conversation by saying 'I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT.' I should point out that he nominated Philip De Fries, who was just two weeks away from making his UFC debut, so clearly the user has proved that he does not look for information on whoever he nominated, otherwise he would not have put him for deletion in the first place. Also was used again later on in the page by User:Mdtemp, saying ' None of these fighters currently meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT'. It is also worth pointing out that he nominated, and somehow successfully, deleted Alan Omer (two time BAMMA veteran, first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, multiple articles on him about being 'Prospect to Watch) And finally Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leone, which again he states 'I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these fighters pass WP:MMANOT either.' He nominated guys like Tim Newman (soon to be 3 time BAMMA veteran), Jake Bostwick and Jamaine Facey (both a total combined of 14 Cage Rage fights (11 Bostwick, 3 Facey)), Diego Vital (two time BAMMA veteran and former title challenger) and Reagan Penn (brother of BJ Penn, many independent coverage reports on him and his fights, two time ProElite veteran). Clearly there is no information gathering going on when Papaursa nominates pages for deletion.

Now Papaursa, let me ask you one question, if someone added in a notable organisation into either the top or second tier organisations list without your knowledge or consent, would you leave it where it is, knowing it belongs there anyway? Its just because that Osubuckeyeguy asked on the talk page if DEEP should be added to the second tier organisations, which by the way, it meets all criteria supporting notability by what they main page says. I agreed that it should, but no-one else has took part in that conversation, not even you, so I can assume that, with a 2-0 vote in favour of it, I can add DEEP to the second tier page, which as I am writing this I ready have. Now if your right in saying that your not the overlord of the page, then I can expect to see DEEP in the second tier organisations every time I look at the page?

Again I have to say that I messaged a couple, not '20' as you stated, of users what I should do, because your lack of fair co-operation in dealing with discussion on WT:MMANOT means that you are giving the impression that you control the page and that you are refusing to even listen to suggestions because it suits you to look tough to anyone who reads the conversations. The page may not necessary be your idea, but remember Caesar didn't create the Roman Republic, yet he took it all and turned it into the Roman Empire, something that can be said about how you treated the page since it's first conception, now you dictate whether a page can remain on here base on the criteria written on there, which, by looking that the pages you nominated in the not too distant past, you clearly prove that you don't look for information on them before you randomly nominate pages.

Now I am not going say I've been perfect at this, but I know when things are not right about pages up for deletion, you say that many people agreed with all the deletions, yet if you took the time to read some of the comment, you'd see things like 'Why Delete Bashir Ahmad', in which the guy defending the page says that the guy meets all the criteria written on the WP:MMANOT page, has multiple articles based on him from Bloody Elbows and Sherdog, The fighter is a pioneer in his home country and is recognised throughout the nation yet no-one answered his comment before deletion. Also another user points out that Alan Omer was the first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion and a two time veteran of the promotion, a promotion that meets all criteria supporting it's own notability through WP:NOT and WP:MMANOT. He has been part of many 'Prosect Watch' articles by Bloody Elbows and Sherdog, again both sites are agreed upon by Wikipedia to be reliable sources of information and there are also articles that talks about him being/becoming champion for the promotion, so again proof that you shouldn't always take the words of the majority, especially seen as no-one else seemed to be looking for information on any of the fighters in question.

Yes it does say "it is a specific supplement to the overall policy of Wikipedia:Notability relating to mixed martial arts and in no way supersedes it." on there, but it doesn't mean that your following it, lets be honest you wrote things like this just so you couldn't be accused of what you are being right now, yet your history of referring pages for deletion on the bases of WP:MMANOT proves otherwise in your case.

I know I already addressed this but I'd say it again, basically I have not got upset by your remarks and comments, I addressed them all with very interesting point that requires your feedback to prove me wrong (as you seem to actually want to fight me at every corner of each comment being made), yet when you not only chose to ignore them but to say you shouldn't answer them when I asked you why you haven't talked about them, that was just insulting for anyone who asks anything on this page, as well as proof that you do feel like you have some majority control over the runnings of the page. I find that your control over the page needs to be removed, and allow independent, unbiased yet knows many things in the area of MMA topics users to take responsibility of the overall running of WP:MMANOT and WT:MMANOT. It's like I said, people use this system to determine whether a page is notable or not, and with you disallowing anyone to rewrite some of the strict guidelines in there, I think it's safe to say that a new editor/s should be in control overview this page, otherwise it will get to the point where only 'top tier' promotion are allowed on here and fighters would have to fight 3 times for them to even be allowed a page on here (I doubt it will happen because of WP:GNG, but the fact that it can happen on that page means it needs to be reviewed). BigzMMA (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, let's disect your latest WP:TLDR missive
  1. I should point out that he nominated Philip De Fries, who was just two weeks away from making his UFC debut, so clearly the user has proved that he does not look for information on whoever he nominated, otherwise he would not have put him for deletion in the first place. WP:ABF,WP:CRYSTAL,WP:BURDEN.
  2. It is also worth pointing out that he nominated, and somehow successfully, deleted Alan Omer (two time BAMMA veteran, first BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, multiple articles on him about being 'Prospect to Watch) Again WP:ABF,WP:CRYSTAL,WP:CONSENSUS (It does take more than 1 person to nominate and successfully delete)
  3. WP:NOTVOTE says Wikipedia works by building consensus. When conflicts arise, they are resolved through discussion, debate and collaboration. While not forbidden, polls should be used with care. When polls are used, they should ordinarily be considered a means to help in determining consensus, not an end in itself. Your "2 to 0" snap attempt to use a poll to assert the consensus is not correct. We have a policy called Bold, Revert, Discusss meaning any editor can make a change to almost any page they want. If annother editor disagrees with the bold (or not so bold change) the edit can be reverted. At that point there is uncertainty in what the consensus is, so we go to the talk page to discuss susinctly what the problem is.
  4. In no stretch of the immagination should you expect a response to your long and very much WP:TLDR postings instantenously. Some editors can only work on WP on the weekends, or might be taking an undeclared vacation. We have 2 clock lengths here at WP. The 1 week AfD clock and the 10 Day PROD clock. The idea is that it's a considered period to let editors evaluate and weigh in on the merits of the article.
  5. Since you missed it before. A Specific (or Subject) Notability Guideline is designed to be very narrow in what it will give it's blessing on in terms of being notable for the exact reason that if you can't get the pass from the SNG there's always the General Notability Guideline. This is why WP:MMANOT is so narrow in what it.
  6. Obviously you have not read WP:OWN and looked at the page, otherwise you'd see that it's not Paparusa controlling the page, but multiple editors disagreeing with your interpretation of the statements.
• Can we try to adress SPECIFIC issues other than "The bathwater needs to be thrown out because it may have scalded a baby and the parent should have their child taken away"? Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• 1. There were many articles and sources about Philip De Fries making his debut at UFC 138 before he did, ranging from the UFC's announcements on their website, to independent articles from both Britain and the United States, his name was easily searchable at the time, even if he wasn't to fight at the event and there are many articles related to him without the UFC debut being part of it. It was clear in terms of 'top tier fights' the user clearly didn't look at this fact, otherwise he would of left him well alone.
  2. I cannot see how Alan Omer fits into WP:CRYSTAL, I already said he is the first BAMMA Featherweight Champion, something that happened in early 2010, and that he competed for them twice, again, both easily found through BAMMA 2, BAMMA 3, and the articles for these pages. There are also 'Prospect Watch' articles on him through two of the biggest independent MMA sites on the internet. Yes it does take more than one person to 'nominate and successfully delete' but you cannot possibly say that anyone who nominated the page for deletion did look him up properly, plus someone brought up the facts I've stated for him and were shot down by, ironically, Papaursa who actually stated 'He won a vacant/new title of a second tier promotion at BAMMA 2 and lost it at BAMMA 3. That's not sufficient to meet WP:MMANOT and I see nothing else to support'notability.!!' Now according to the WP:MMANOT page, BAMMA meets all criteria supporting notability, which means its a notable organisation, right? and if Alan Omer won a championship from them, regardless of whether he was the first or not, he has still won a title from a notable organisation, which makes him notable through the Fighters section of MMANOT. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot!
  3. The user who asked about DEEP wrote about it on the 12th this month, and no-one commented about it until I did on the 18th, and after no other users said anything about it by yesterday, which was the 25th November (nearly 2 weeks after it was first brought up), I could safely assume that no-one disagreed with having it on the second tier side of it, which meant I can put it on there. Now I noticed that Papaursa finally put in his thought about it after I said that I did, and I don't know whether he actually agrees with it, or just trying to not look weak by removing it knowing that two users agreed to the move with no other users disagreeing with it, which still means it was, as you say, consensus. Either way it's going to remain there unless proved it isn't worthy of being there.
  4. The fact the user still refuses to comment to my direct answers/comments, regardless of 'how long the paragraphs are' is not a good enough excuse, and one that we both know this user isn't using, instead he just simply says 'He shouldn't have to answer my points'. I will not use shorter paragraphs if it doesn't get my full point across, what is the point of trying to talk about your point of view if you cannot explain it fully just because someone cannot be bothered to take the time to read it. If you engage into a conversation, you will have to listen and talk about everything that person says, now naturally when we talk face to face about something we don't need to say everything at once, as we can break it down bit by bit. On this, everything needs to be made clear otherwise no-one will understand you, and it can even make the conversations longer.
  5. The problem with WP:MMANOT is what your saying is right about it. The criteria set on the page just doesn't narrows it down, it sets it on a one road system, and only a few vehicles are allowed to use it. Now I have make a suggested layout on the talk page, one that follows most of what the page says now, but it doesn't need to put such a huge weight on the pages it relates to, to make them meet the criteria as it is now and determine whether they should be kept on here makes its much too difficult for these pages, We all know that WP:GNG makes MMANOT useless at times, but tell that to the people who are using it to determine notability, so they know that if a page doesn't meet MMANOT they must make sure that it at least meets GNG, and they do their research on the topic before they decide to put it on a AfD.
  6. Papaursa has met one action that implies he is violating WP:OWN - 'An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article. (This does not include the routine correction of egregious formatting errors.)' This can be seen in WT:MMANOT, where users are suggesting adding in criteria, examples of notable organisations etc.

Okay then, here are the issues -

• Papaursa's overviewing of WP:MMANOT needs to be replaced with an unbiased, fair user/s who have extensive knowledge of MMA related Topics.

• WP:MMANOT badly needs to be edited to be softer on the criteria that fighters/promotions needs to meet on there, so users who decide a page's notability based entirely on the criteria on the page can decide more clearly and not use small, undocumented ideas about dealing with them, such as the trump card system unofficially in place for it.

• Make the point more clear through the page that WP:GNG is needed to be looked at when a page doesn't meet MMANOT, make a reference for it to each 'criteria supporting deletion' part of the page for users to look at GNG before deciding.

• Again, use the page to inform users to fully look into the page in question before deciding notability, in other words, tell them to do Google searches, particularly the Google 'News' search for new things on the page, and remind them that things like foreign language pages and reports made on it that wasn't published online still count supporting notability.

That is pretty much it really, just heavily improve WP:MMANOT and loosen Papaursa grip on the page. BigzMMA (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• So all you want is for me not to edit certain pages and for us to throw away the consensus agreement that was WP:MMANOT in favor of what you wrote. This from someone who attacked and threatened at least 4 editors for disagreeing with him, recreated articles that were deleted at AFD because you claimed none of the other 9 editors understood, changed article links to thwart AfD discussions, and while adding nearly 60K to WT:MMANOT managed to never see value in any opinion he didn't already have. You still don't seem to understand that any editor can edit any page and discussions are decided by consensus. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What I want is for you to stop acting like everything to do with MMA has to go through your approval first. Your not even an administrator yet you feel you can edit whatever you want and feel that anything must seek your approval before even meeting a page. You cannot possibly say that WP:MMANOT is anywhere near a perfect system, hell I even admitted that my suggested layout isn't exactly the Mona Lisa but it answers many of the problems with the criteria set out now, plus I have already stated under it that anyone can help with improving it still by adding in their suggestions. Remember I did said (and you can still see it) that it follows the same/similar criteria set out by you, but tweaked enough to answer some of it's problems.

Threatened 4 editors? Because of their (you included) discriminative actions, I said I was going to take action against you, which you damn knew well that I meant I was going to report you to ANI, I was just beaten to the punch and once blocked, no-one tried to listen to me again.

Yes, those 9 editors didn't understand that UCMMA is a major player in the MMA community, especially in the UK MMA Scene. Everyone here recognises them as one of the 'Top 3' in this country, along with BAMMA and Cage Warriors. There are plenty of articles out there on them, but you know, I'm tired of repeating all this to people who don't bother to look it up. My case for them is on WT:MMANOT if you want to know my case, matter of fact its worth pointing out that Astudent0 was so impressed with my case for it on the page, he suggested that I put it in my Sandbox, edit it a bit and tidy up the references so that I can prove to the Administrators that review it that it is what I've been saying all along - A notable organisation. And remember, Astudent0 has the same issues against me as you do, so for him to agree with me on it means I've been right about it all along.

'while adding nearly 60K to WT:MMANOT managed to never see value in any opinion he didn't already have'? Lets be honest every point I made on that page is a good point, nothing on there is crap talking and, if anything, its you that doesn't appreciate the honesty or the accuracy of another one's opinion. You choose the base your arguments to keep a fighter on Wikipedia based on 'whether he fought for a top tier promotion' I have already pointed out that that system is a massive flop with my example of Travis Fulton, yet you disregard what I said and instead just added in a small amount of information about his boxing record. So when I say there is a trump card system within the page on how to decide a notable promotion/fighter, and you deny it but say things like 'I'd take a single UFC fight over multiple articles on the person' then tell me truthfully is that the sort of user who has the best interests of the pages at heart? Your choosing what to follow and its being proved the more you engage into this conversation. And you think your suitable to overview a page like that? The only trump card that should existed with this page involved is GNG beats MMANOT, and the majority of criteria met on there beats the minority of criteria met on there.

Majority consensus doesn't mean that they are right, it means that the majority agrees to something. It is because of this system that, for example, in criminal courts innocent people get sentenced for murder, whilst rapists get away from it, just because the majority agreed to the decision. I would of though you'd understood something like that, guess not.

And just like the example of consensus I used, I appreciate the system, so long as the decision is the right one. BigzMMA (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It has just come to my attention on WT:MMA that many, many notable organisation's event pages are being deleted or forced to be merged. Promotions like Bellator, World Victory Road and even a UFC event has been either deleted or forced merged. And guess who is part of this Hasteur? thats right our old buddy Papaursa. These pages meet GNG and MMANOT, yet he continues to vote delete on these pages. Its what I've been saying all along, he hasn't got the best interest of MMA topics on Wikipedia, he has abused his powers given to him to edit pages and the choice to delete them, for this reason I not only I want to see his grip taken off MMANOT, but to place a lengthly ban on him and the other users who voted delete so other users can repair the damage they have inflicted on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Just linking to the pages doesn't demonstrate the actions, we need specific examples of Papaursa wielding the policy in it's current form incorrectly. This is your final warning to not assume bad faith and to not make personal attacks. Comment on the content not the contributor. If you think the page needs to be entirely deleted, file a Misc. for Discussion ticket. If you think that it needs to be discussed by a larger group, hold a Request for Comment to solicit external viewpoints to determine if and what needs to be changed about the essay. If you think this is a user behavior issue, hold a Request for Comment/User on Papaursa. I'll keep what I think the problem is to myself pending which route you decide to take as I've gone through the essay, the various articles you have held up as being harmed by the essay, and the wikiproject discussion pages and have formed a viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• At last Bigzmma gets to the crux of the matter--consensus is fine only when it agrees with him and users who disagree with him should have "a lengthy ban". Frankly, I'm tired of his diatribes against me when he has yet to point out a single WP policy I've violated. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the AfD discussions he participated in that he is looking to get very notable events deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Total Elimination 2003. This is not a personal attack, as I am showing you evidence to prove what the user is doing. It is like you don't bother to read anything I say at all Papaursa. I have already stated that the people who voted delete in the AfD discussion for UCMMA clearly weren't looking for the information they are told to do before deciding whether to delete or not. The difference between this and the AfD discussion you take part in for deletion are notable, they are from notable promotions, ones that you agreed are notable, and you believe that just because something huge like someone getting killed or Michale Jackson suddenly moonwalked into the ring/cage didn't happen it means it ain't worth keeping them on there. The UFC Fight Nights have been more than just the odd one or two, as we can see there have been many of them since the first mone the UFC did, and even though they are not as common as the main UFC events, doesn't mean to say that they aren't notable events. Because you and the other users who vote delete for these pages have proved that you haven't got the best interests of MMA on here, I believe it is wrong for you to be part of these discussion that require serious choices to be made about some very big MMA promotions/events/fighters/personel. And I have pointed out many WP policys you violated, once again not looking into what I typed in here, I hope Hasteur takes note of this, if you are not reading everything on his discussion, then you show no desire of a means to make a forward step. The fact that you try to break down everything I say to a single, near inaccurate sentence shows this. BigzMMA (talk) 10:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:MMANOT Arbitrary Break #1

BigzMMA, thank you for posting specific examples. Let's look at them for a moment

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku 4 - Multi-AfD going on. I can see a case for putting the articles up for nominaton based on the way they are written, and Papaursa is commenting without expressing a Keep/Delete viewpoint (though it feels as though they are leaning Delete) on some of the articles. Just because you comment on a AfD doesn't mean you want to burn the article to the ground.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard - Not seeing how MMANOT is being used by Papaursa as an instrument of deletion. They are arguing that there's routine coverage doesn't rise to the level of notability for WP. Also if MMANOT is so bad, why is it used to argue both ways on the discussion?
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pride Total Elimination 2003 - Nowhere is MMANOT being referenced. Papaursa argues that some of the articles in the Multi-AfD don't rise above normal coverage of a fight.

Just because someone is not on the prevailing side of an AfD doesn't mean that their viewpoint was wrong to begin with. In addition just because consensus establishes against your viewpoint does not mean that the consensus was wrong.

Since you don't seem to be able to come up with a solution for how to move forward and are fixated on the "Papaursa is always wrong and should be banished from MMA topics" I'm going to recomend that you prepare a Request for Comment/User posting. Couple bits of advice.

1. Make sure you have every single scrap of evidence you need for this process
2. Make sure you have additional editors that can certify additional attempts of dispution with Papaursa about the MMA notability guideline and
3. Be aware that if you open this, people who comment will also look at your motivations and interactions. This could lead to a WP:BOOMERANG situation.

If there are no objections, I'll close this in 24 hours as I've attempted to mediate between you and Papaursa without any real success Hasteur (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Papaursa isn't using anything to explain why he'd rather have it deleted rather than work along with the users defending it shows that he has no real desire to make a reasonable decision on the subjects. It doesn't mean its right either yet the only way to move forward on these debates is to just leave them on Wikipedia, so if anything is needed to be added to these pages, then it can be made possible to do so. Also you'd have to look right up the page to see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Challenge MMA, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leone, you'd see evidence in which Papaursa and other users have used MMANOT as the reason to why the pages in question should be deleted.

I am willing to come to a solution, the problem is that Papaursa is refusing to accept any wrong doing of his own, he still denies he feels he has a duty to overview the MMANOT page amongst other MMA pages, and clearly he has shown he will not back up a bit away from MMA topics on Wikipedia to allow other users to improve the content of MMANOT, all of which is hurting the pages involved. Also he is unwilling to co-operate with me in trying to improve the MMANOT page, something that more people other than myself want to see happen, yet he uses his own influence over the page to deny this from happening. If he continues to refuse a fair co-operation in dealing with the page, I will consider your proposal to have the page deleted. Thank you for trying though, I would of thought he'd attempt to be reasonable in here, instead he uses this as a way to insult me and questions me at every turn. I will wait until mid-day tomorrow (local time) to see whether he can come to an agreement with me on the subject, or if I have to call for the page's deletion. BigzMMA (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been warned multiple times about making un-civil and attack like commentary. You have one hour from this posting to strike your direct attacks on Papaursa from this posting before I raise your continued behavior issues with administrators who have dealt with you before. Hasteur (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bigz, I'm going to have to agree with Hasteur here. You're focusing a bit too much on Papaursa. If you feel they're not being conducive to progress, feel free to open an RFC/U as Hasteur detailed above - however, do so without the insulting tone. It's not all bad, because we've met before on this same issue and you've come a long way from personal attacks since then. Know that I've noticed, and I do appreciate that you're controlling yourself. Just please take Hasteur's advice in this case to heart. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page. m.o.p 05:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I will remove any content that you may feel is a personal attack towards Papaursa Hasteur, so long as he does the same, by looking up the page since the start of this ANI conversation he has made sly comments about me also don' forget, and I find that, in respect, this choice words are in some ways a personal attack, as he is using past content to influence your opinion on myself. Again I will stress I am happy to remove said comments so long as the same request goes to him also.

And m.o.p, thank you for your comment, I have learned a little bit whilst blocked, but by looking at how he chooses to keep pages based on which criteria on MMANOT more, in which he preferred choice is one that doesn't follow GNG. I believe that this is a serious issue as he refuses to acknowledge GNG before MMANOT. I will start to look into RFC/U to see how to approach it. BigzMMA (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me stop you right there. The request was not in the form of "Let's all remove our personal attacks", the request was for you to remove your personal attacks. It was not predicated on anyone else's edits or actions, but solely on what you have said - and what you need to retract. You acknowledge the breach - you acknowledge that some of your edits may be viewed by Hasteur as personal attacks. They remain personal attacks regardless of whatever Papaursa does or says. So you need to retract them. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished reading through this discussion, and I agree with a point that Hasteur made further up the page that the best thing to do in this case would be to take the page to RfC. I would say to include a neutral, short summary of the disagreements so far on, and to make sure you include a "threaded discussion" section, so that the initial comments section doesn't become bogged down by long comments. As the page is a guide to notability, you can probably advertise the RfC on WT:Notability, and hopefully that will bring you a high calibre of commenter. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask them below. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:57, 1 December 2011 (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.

Andrew Landeryou discussion

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.

"Technocracy", "Technocracy movement" discussion

I am the one who flagged it as contradictory. The previous summary said "economists would be in charge in a technocracy" which is very contradictory since the whole point of Technocracy is that it is explicitly anti-economist, just take a look at any Technocracy information for a confirmation of that. That distinction and the reason for it must be explained clearly in this article. Also I removed some of the irrelevant information about socialism and socialist theory which looks like advertising and does not belong in this article. I don't have any more agenda than a group of editors who identify themselves as economists repeatedly deleting factual information about an anti-economist organization and it's anti-economist body of thought without any justification. All my edits are factually correct and completely in accord with Wikipedia guidelines.Newuser2011 (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And generally sourced to in-universe sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the merits in the update Newuser2011 is pushing for. Side-by-side the long standing summary seems to fit best. The summary being pushed for by Newuser2011 appears to be a discussion of the etymology of the word, rather than a general summary. 126.159.109.39 (talk) 06:24, 5 December 2011 (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.

London Heathrow Airport discussion

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.

History of pottery in the Southern Levant, History of pottery in Palestine discussion

Sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun (and that proper noun has become the usual term for the event), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue.

• That one possibility could be that Palestine was at one time a relatively neutral term for the area but that due to the rise and increasing organization of Palestinian nationalism that it has now lost the neutrality that it once had.
• That one solution might be to analyze the Google Books hits for "Palestine" — a daunting task, unquestionably — to divide them between uses which are neutral and those in which they refer to Palestinian nationalism or claims by or about it.
• A third, not entirely unreasonable, solution would be to recognize that there is a substantial, wholly non-specious argument to be made, whether or not absolutely proven, that "Palestine" is, or is no longer, neutral and that Wikipedia should, on the theory that it should avoid the mere possibility of appearance of bias, avoid its use in favor of more neutral terms such as Southern Levant.

I'm not at all certain of how the question should be answered. One issue which ought to also be considered is whether, if the question is to be answered, whether it should be answered just for this one article or for the whole of Wikipedia. I would invite the opinions of my fellow mediators on these issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, I am other other editor involved in the original discussion. I suspect I can speak for Drsmoo as well when I say that we are grateful for your calm and considered thoughts on this. I hope others will comment as well.

Your comments about how the neutrality of the term Palestine has changed over time are important here. I would like to suggest that the distinction must be drawn not between using the word today or a century ago, but rather using the word in different contexts - in particular using Palestine to refer to the region today versus using Palestine to refer to historical topics:

• Describing the region today as being called Palestine could imply support for Palestinian nationalism, since today Israel exists on or controls the entire region.
• Describing the region in history as being called Palestine is consistent with scholarly consensus and replacing it from its normal context with an an uncommon term like "Southern Levant" could imply support for Israeli nationalism, since Zionist propaganda organizations like CAMERA have attempted to expunge the name Palestine from history for many years (e.g. a recent example here) in order to further their cause.

In other words, when one side is trying to erase historical recognition of the other, there can be no "middle". Palestine either existed in history as a recognized region, or it didn't, and there can be no middle without implying support for one side of the debate. Anyone who suggests "Southern Levant" is a neutral term is either not familiar with the aims of Zionist propaganda, or is very familiar with the aims of Zionist propaganda...

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Transporterman. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't believe anyone on Wikipedia is trying to "erase Palestine." I certainly don't object to their being a history of Palestine article or any similar articles. What I have objected to is replacing links from Southern Levant, which is a neutral term, to Palestine, which is non-neutral in my opinion. Southern Levant and Palestine are not completely synonymous, Palestine being the name for an area within the Southern Levant at a certain time. In Oncenawhile's own words when creating the History of Palestine article "Wikipedia currently has many articles describing overlapping regions in this area - e.g. Palestine, Canaan, Zion, the Land of Israel, Syria Palaestina, Southern Syria, Jund Filastin, Outremer, the Holy Land and the Southern Levant. These regions are all defined slightly differently, and therefore have different articles." Given this statement, it is unclear why Oncenawhile has felt the need to move multiple articles from "Southern Levant" to "Palestine" as well as altering multiple links from "Southern Levant" to "Palestine". Here, here, here here here here as well as in two instances moving additional articles from History of the Southern Levant to History of Palestine here and here as well as here where he instead directed away from the History of the Southern Levant article to Ancient Israel and Judah. I agree with his original statements that the regions are defined differently and there should be multiple articles, on the contrary Oncenawhile has been atempting to methodically remove references to the term Southern Levant from Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps you could strike everything in your post above from the words "Given this statement" onwards as being irrelevant to the content-related topic you posted above (and wholly misrepresentative of the facts). Any editor who is keen to hear more of this behaviourial question can read our AN/I discussion here. But for now at least, it would be great if we could stay on topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional note: A google search for "ancient Israel" produces 1,550,000 results, while a google search for "ancient Palestine" produces 672,000 results. A google book search for "ancient Israel" produces 735,000 results while a google book search for "ancient Palestine" produces 128,000 results. The reason I am in favor of using the term Southern Levant, as opposed to Israel or Palestine, is that it avoids the back and forth move wars, and is a neutral generic term that applies to both regions without neglecting either. I have no problem with their being overarching histories of the Southern Levant articles as well as separate articles for histories of Palestine, histories of Israel etc for the sake of being specific and relieving tensions. But I don't see why Oncenawhile has seen fit to summarily remove references to Southern Levant or to replace Southern Levant articles with Palestine when they are not entirely synonymous. Drsmoo (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Saying By saying there is no middle ground, creates an you're trying to create if-you're-not-for-us-you're-against-us leverage for your argument. That argument creates a False dilemma since there is at least one third position: being as neutral as possible even if absolute neutrality cannot be achieved (and I do not assert, claim, or agree that it either can or cannot). Given the choice between a facially-neutral term which happens to further the agenda of a group in some way and a facially-non-neutral term, my feeling is that the facially-neutral one ought to be used. However, I still also feel that the non-neutrality of the term Palestine is not established and is a matter which should be discussed and decided by the community. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC) PS: I've revised my initial statement to remove the appearance I was addressing your intent, rather than your argument. That implication was unintended, but I didn't catch my poor wording until after I hit "Save page". I apologize for the unintended imprecation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@both: My colleague, Mr. Stradivarius, makes a good point in the Soccer in Australia dispute, below. Since this is a naming dispute, the best venue to obtain active discussion on this matter would be at Requested moves. I've taken the liberty of listing this there so as to get the discussion started. Please feel free to supplement what I've said at Talk:History_of_pottery_in_Palestine#Requested_move, but in light of the volume of what's been said already, I'd suggest that you might be best served by just letting your existing arguments speak for you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 22 November 2011 (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.

Talk:Natalie Wood discussion

• I'm confused. Lhb1239 has filed multiple complains against me at once.

• At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - clearing me of edit warring, as editing own comments is not considered a "revert".
• At Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance Here the editor responding has supported me.
• And here at this noticeboard.
• He has plastered my talk page with 29 warnings and threatens in the last 24 hours or so. e.g.
• He has reverted my efforts to clarify my own comments on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard e.g.
• What should I do? All I have done is follow the advice of others.
• I asked a question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and was advised to ask the question at WP:BLPN which I did.
• I asked at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests if it was ok to [redact] my comments on a discussion page if no one had responded to them. I was told it there were no special rules preventing that. Yet Lhb1239 has edit warred over my comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
• He has reverted my attempts to pull together comments at Talk:Natalie Wood
• I really don't understand what is going on. Please advise. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The above statement that I have edit warred at the Reliable sources noticeboard is a misrepresentation. Actually, it's MathewTownsend who has edit warred there and currently has an Edit Warring/3RR report filed on him (see here). As far as whose advice he follows: so far, that's proven to be selective as he seems to only follow the advice of those who tell him what he wants to hear. Hence, the filing of this report/request for assistance. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Edit warring complaint closed. This Edit warring complaint#MathewTownsend reported by User:Lhb1239 was closed with no action taken.
• I am receiving support on Talk:Natalie Wood. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Mathew - none of this is about winning. If that's what you think Wikipedia will be for you, you're in for a huge disappointment. Wikipedia editors are fickle. Those who support you today can (and will) just as quickly throw you under the bus. Being here is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia - you might wnat to try focusing on that, not how many "supporters" you think you have. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an extremely unhelpful comment. The community is tolerant of venting, but if it continues much longer, it will become necessary for a more focused discussion regarding a possible interaction ban. Johnuniq (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And your edit summary, "Please drop it" when I asked a direct question in all sincereity (that wasn't answered) was extremely unhelpful as well. As far as an interaction ban being necessary - not hardly. I'm a grown up and can control my interactions with other editors just fine. Lhb1239 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. As it says in the instructions, above, DRN is for content disputes and only handles conduct disputes when they're marginal and incidental to a content dispute. The Dispute overview section mentions a content dispute, but all the specific statements and responses here are about conduct. Unless the parties choose to stop talking about the conduct issues and bring forward and discuss a content dispute, I will close this discussion as being inappropriate for this forum. If, on the other hand, they desire additional dispute resolution on the conduct issues, it would appear to me on a quick look that RFC/U or ANI are probably your next stop. Unless someone wants to bring forward a content dispute in the next 24 hours, I will close this thread. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

While it's very possible I may have to come here again over the same user, at this point you can close this issue. Thanks, Lhb1239 (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2011 (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.

Insanity defense discussion

Mark v 1, please don't put such inaccuracies into the discussion. Where have I posted that I don't understand the rules of wikipedia? Not sure how you're contributing to a dispute resolution with the way you've presented your case - it sounds more like you're asking for a partial decisions favouring you! I've explained the basis for removing an inappropriate reference which doesn't prove the point made. If you mentioned an example then used that citation as support, that would be different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc insanity (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2011 (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.

Zoophilia discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.

In particular, I strongly oppose User:Someone963852's desire to eradicate the terms "zoosexual" and "zoosexuality" from the article, even though there are scholarly sources which back them up. To eliminate the terms without even mentioning them would be pushing to article in a POV direction (in this case, anti-zoophilia).

To prevent me and Someone963852 from reverting each other indefinitely, a solution should be reached Plateau99 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If you had been paying attention (instead of reverting every single thing I edited), you would see that the terms "zoosexuality" and "zoosexuals" were merged under the Terminology section. I changed zoosexuality and zoosexuals to zoophilia and zoophiles respectively for consistency with the article's name (as I mentioned multiple times before on the talk page and edit history).

Please stop thinking that everyone is "anti-zoophilia" if they made a change you disagree with. Someone963852 (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not about pro or anti zoophilia -- this is about removal of information. In your most recent edit, you have gotten rid of most of the arguments in the "arguments for zoophilia" section. Those arguments should be brought back because they were fully cited; granted, some parts needed more citing, but that's what Wikipedia is all about: constant improving. Your reverts are not improvements, they are a step backwards. In addition, the correct terminology throughout the article should be "zoosexual" -- this isn't "pro-zoophilia" bias, it is because of the zoosexuality sources I listed on the talk page. And your comparison between zoosexuality and "pedosexuality" is not a good one. Zoophilia and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other. In fact, that was in one of the arguments you erased. Plateau99 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It might seemed like I removed a ton of information, but that's because you were the only one editing the pages for months. No one cared to recheck the sources or remove original research. I came along and removed the ones that were "bad," so they all add up after those times.

Also, the materials you added weren't "improvements". Actually, they were a step backwards for the article because they were filled with original research and non-neutral POV materials. Most of those original research and non-neutral POV material came from the "arguments for zoophilia" section, so I removed it. Not because I'm "anti-zoophilia", but because they weren't constructive for the article.

My edits (mainly removal of original research, non-neutral POV material, unsourced additions, poor/ unreliable sources, irrelevent materials, claims that aren't backed up by sources, opinions) are trying to make the article fair and neutral, but you keep reverting them back to the "pro-zoophilia" slant. Someone963852 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that my intention is not to make a "pro-zoophilia slant" in the article? If anything, you're making an "anti-zoosexual" slant in the article by censoring information. The only reason I am not undoing the changes you've made right now is because I know that if I did it, you'd revert it 2 minutes later.

The fact is that your edits to the article are wrong and they should be reverted. The information which you claim is unreliable and irrelevant is very much relevant and well sourced. It isn't up to you to decide what is and is not relevant in an article.Plateau99 (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this discussion is going in circles again with you (being pro-zoophilia and all, but claiming you're not [although your edit history of the article contradicts you]) accusing others of being "anti-zoophilia" when you disagree with their changes. Someone963852 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi fellow editors (that's not at all cheesy is it?!). It might be a good idea if you take a short break from discussion with each other until someone can take a good look at the issue and start the process of finding the compromise you have so far not found yourselves. Relax and spend a couple of days reading other articles or something. A little time off will do you both some good. No harm in it anyway  fg 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not cheesy at all :). I'll read this over and give my thoughts on it today. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't had a lot of time to look through the content that was removed and the sources that were provided for the content that was removed, but I will note the change of wording from zoophilia to zoosexuality. It's about how common the wording is in reliable sources. One must also take care not to give undue weight to marginal views. As the title of the article is Zoophilia, then changing every instance (or many instances) in the article of Zoophillia to Zoosexuality is not the right thing to do. I'll need some time to take a closer look at the content that was changed/removed and then weigh in once I've taken a look. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Steven et al, I blocked both of the users for 24 hours and I full protected the article for a week due to the edit war. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Steven Zhang's assessment here. I think if the question was purely about the question of whether to use zoophilia or zoosexuality, then we could deal with it here, or maybe send it to an RfC. As it is, though, there appears to be other content issues at work here as well, and so I think mediation might be a better fit. Have you considered submitting a request for a mediator at the Mediation Cabal? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:22, 1 December 2011 (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.

Michael Woo discussion

This is a tricky question, as I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guidelines that would give us an indication of what to do here. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing may be to take this question to RfC and find opinions from a wide range of editors. Does this sound like a good idea to both of you? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that a WP:Cabal of Chinese-language editors will swamp the discussion. How would you handle that, Mr. Stradivarius? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What about the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, since the discussion at Talk:Michael_Woo seems to hinge on whether there are Reliable Sources for using the romanizations in the article? (A new wrinkle: One of the editors now claims that there is a Reliable Source for using "Kay" as the middle name of Mr. Woo. The other editor disputes that.) Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Or another idea - how about just emailing Michael Woo himself and asking him which version he prefers? That would seem to be as good a criterion to base this on as any other. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 23:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A Chinese name is not subject to the person as to what "version" he/she prefers. It's all about how it is used. There is a crowded Chinese-language media in the Los Angeles area--newspapers, radio and TV. Woo used all those during his mayoral campaign. (And he no doubt continued to use his Chinese name in community involvement afterward.) As the Chinese script is not alphabetical but ideographic, it has been consistently across the English and other Wikipedias to include romanizations to indicate the sound, which is in turn encylopedic for a biography because of its link to a person's Latin/English legal name. Mandarin Pinyin is the worldwide standard for Chinese, and Cantonese is the lingua franca of Woo's generation of ethnic Chinese population of Los Angeles, i.e. if he speaks any dialect, it's Cantonese, and if he doesn't speak Chinese fluently at all (likely the case), this is the one pronunciation he will recognize. In other words, romanizations come along with the name once it is used/given/known.

In articles of better known ethnic Chinese persons, there's even a box describing all the scripts, meanings, pronunciation in different dialects, etc. I don't think Woo deserves that much "Chinese" attention. My minimalist approach led me to prefer first-sentence coverage only. The current sub-header/one sentence style is to me already an overkill, lest a box like Michelle Kwan's. However, the initiating editor seems to prefer maintaining consistency among L.A. Councilmen (or, as he says, "Americans") than among similar politicians of similar background. HkCaGu (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. There is certainly an argument to be had for maintaining consistency across the encyclopedia, and I do agree that we have to weigh up the different arguments before making a final decision. To GeorgeLouis - if you are worried about bias in RfC participants, then you can always try mediation. This dispute isn't eligible for MedCom yet, but you may be able to find a MedCab mediator willing to take on your case. If you choose to go the mediation route, though, be aware that you will both have to submit to the process. I still think that RfC seems the more natural fit here, but it is up to you both how you want to proceed with this. Finally, HkCaGu, I saw your suggestion on the talk page of taking this dispute to ANI, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. If anything WP:BOOMERANG may apply, for comments like this one, so it is probably best to back off from that line of inquiry before too many people notice. As usual, comments and questions are most welcome. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I finally understood what the other user was driving at, so I edited the sentence in question, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Woo&action=historysubmit&diff=463507698&oldid=463216492. I hope this will satisfy everybody concerned. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:46, 1 December 2011 (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.

Adam Parfrey discussion

I agree that CarrieLorraine has made a good faith effort to discuss this dispute and attempt to find consensus. The history is that I added this information to the article on 26 Sept 2011. CarrieLorraine deleted it on 26 November without discussion. I added it back two days later with a plea for discussion prior to any further deletion. CarrieLorraine deleted it twice more. CanadianLinuxUser and ItsZippy restored it on those occasions. We are not sure if those editors truly support the material as such, or if they merely think CarrieLorraine was remiss in not discussing.

The point is that the Amazon promo for Dark Mission was originally three sentences, two of which were false. One of them was withdrawn, I don't know when. The other falsehood is still there, demonstrably. Inspection of the book's ToC shows that no chapter about Von Braun is in the second edition. While CarrieLorraine is technically correct that the promo was changed, it was not changed sufficiently to avoid the charge of mendacity. CarrieLorraine has stated that it's very difficult for a publisher to get Amazon to make changes. Apparently not.

My reason for wishing to include this material in Adam Parfrey's page is that it is informative of his sense of his responsibility as a publisher placing material on the public record. I have stated, and I now state again, that I have no personal grudge against Parfrey. El Ingles (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I restored the content in haste while Huggling - the rationale was unexplained removal of content, which I assumed because CarrieLorraine gave no rationale in her edit summary. I admit that was a mistake - I failed to more thoroughly examine the edit and article history. My position in this dispute is completely neutral and my restoration of content should not be interpreted to mean anything other than a slightly overzealous revert while Huggling. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The section in question constitutes WP:OR; I have removed it and commented on the talk page. Gerardw (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciation. Is there a way to prevent this user from putting the information up again in the future and having to come back to the noticeboard with it? CarrieLorraine (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. We always assume an editor will act in accordance with guidelines and consensus in the future, unless there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Gerardw (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to worry, Carrie. I'm quite happy to accept Gerardw's decision. I got a fair hearing. Cheers. 00:49, 8 December 2011 (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.

Queen's Bands discussion

I am a mediator/clerk here at DRN. I have requested page protection to prevent the page from being edited by anonymous editors while this is being worked out. It appears to me that the edits being deleted are well within Wikipedia guidelines. Though the current source is a college newspaper, which can sometimes be iffy as a reliable source when reporting on events at its own college (see good discussion here), the story was widely picked up in the Canadian mainstream national press (Google news search), which reported the same facts as set out in the college story. The short reference to the event in this longer article does not appear to me to give undue weight to the incident. The IP editor should feel free to either create an account and log in to add text and supporting references to other stories from reliable sources which provide a counterpoint to the current assertions in the text, or or place a request on the article talk page that a logged-in editor do it for him/her. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Closing notes: The article has now been semi-protected for two weeks. I have replaced the edits in question and have left a detained discussion of why it was improper to remove them on the article talk page. At the end of the day however, this noticeboard is only for disputes which have been thoroughly discussed by the parties in a manner other than just edit summaries (see the guidelines at the beginning of the DRN page) and that has not yet occurred here, so I am closing this listing. If the other editor comes back and chooses to discuss the material and if that discussion results in a stalemate, please feel free to relist the matter here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 8 December 2011 (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.

A link is provided discussion

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.

Template:GravEngAbs discussion

I would give the RfC more time before assuming it has produced a consensus. There have only been four editors commenting so far, and the RfC was only opened three days ago, on November 27. With no further objections I'll close this thread, as it can't really fulfill any purpose that the RfC isn't doing already. If there are still problems after the RfC has been closed, then dispute resolution will still be around to help. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue goes beyond not following the admittedly preliminary RFC consensus; specifically the WP:IDHT lack of response to persistent and repeated requests for sources. Six physics articles currently have unsourced POV information in them. I would appreciate comments or advice from other editors, if possible. Gerardw (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please keep the discussion on the template’s Talk page, at least for now. No-one has replied yet with a clear opinion about the Designations row that user:Gerardw keeps changing. — Christoph Päper 09:06, 1 December 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Government discussion

A six month stale proposal which has not been accepted has obviously failed and I've tagged the article as such. Gerardw (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So far there hasn't even been a proposal that can be formally rejected. What has happened is that I started out with a general idea that needs to be developed further with some input from other editors. I did take into account some of the comments, but it needs more work. So, it is still a proposal, but the idea is that editors should work constructively on improving it so that it can be considered by the community for adoption or rejection. If editors right now don't like it, they can write why not. But in the state it is now, one shouldn't consider the feedback to be up or down votes.

It is true that it has gone a bit stale, but then I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia, the time I do have goes into watching the 200+ articles on my watchlist and answering questions on the Ref. Desk. Then what time there as for policy discussions was used up on the discussions about "not truth" on the WP:V talk page the last few months.

And if we consider the events at WP:V, we have to admit that we already have a sort of government of a few Admins who are now deciding what to do with Blueboar's proposal. So, saying that it's a non-starter is just an opinion that doesn't even reflect current reality on Wikipedia. So, the basic idea cannot be dismissed as a non-starter. The proposal would just formalize current practice. But, of course, as it is written now, it's not comprehensive enough.

And considering what we've seen on WP:V with 1/3 saying to 2/3 of editors that they don't have enough consensus to implement their proposal, so we should stick with the present version (which was never put to a vote, which likely never would have gotten even a majority), this calls into question if non-regulars like me can even get involved in the policy pages. Another proposal of mine WP:ESCA, which is currently an essay, was effectively sunk by a small group of regulars who construed it as some threat to their Wiki-ideology, even though it pragmatically discusses real issues that come up with the certain type of scientific articles.

In conclusion, the proposal is still open and under development. It should not be labeled as a failed proposal at this time, that would be like a journal rejecting a paper for publication that I haven't even submitted yet. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Beeblbrox, would you like to comment about the explicitly hostile stance you've taken towards this proposal (for example your uncivil edit summary back in May) ? Count Iblis, is there a specific reason why the page laid idle for so long without any changes based on the improvement? Could either of you please link to the VP thread where this was discussed for failure or given time to improve? I will look at this some more and have a few more thoughts in a few hours. Hasteur (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You tagged it proposal 10 May 2011 . So it's not reasonable to say it's not a proposal. Gerardw (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• @Hasteur: I don't think that my attitude or opinion changes the obvious fact that this proposal was rejected a long time ago, but if you are referring to this edit my hostility was aimed at the outright lies that were at that time on the page. Count Iblis is so lost in this idea that he wrote about events that he imagined, that never really transpired. I explained all at the time, see Wikipedia talk:Government#removed text. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• @Count Iblis: You seriously need to wake up and smell the coffee. Nobody has worked with you to improve this idea because nobody agrees with it and it has no chance, ,none, as in zero, zilch, nada, of ever being implemented. You were told as much several times back in May, but you seem to have completely lost all touch with reality where this proposal is concerned. Snap out of it man. Your idea was rejected, not because you got the details wrong but because the very core idea is contrary to how Wikipedia works and it would create an immense new bureaucracy. It was clear eight months ago to everyone else. If you want to continue to pretend this is something other than a rejected proposal I again suggest you userfy it. You can fill it with crazy nonsense that never happened to your heart's desire there, but if it is going to remain in WP space it belongs to the project and the project has said the idea is rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's all take a breather and remember Civility in all aspects of editing and discussions with other editors.

Beeblebrox, please do not make attack like assertions in response to other editors or the content on wikipedia ("crazed nonsense that never happened", "outright lies"). Would moving the proposal out of WP space alleviate your concerns?

Count Iblis, can you commit to working on this to aleviate the concerns Beeblebrox has with this? If not would it be better to move this out of WP project space and into your user space to work on (in the back burner), or would a MfD be a better solution?

If both of you could respond to find a solution that works for everyone that would allow the Wiki-Love to continue. Hasteur (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have rather missed the point. I have no interest in the proposal being improved, that would not alleviate the concerns that led to this dispute. My comments that you object to are about the proposal, not it's creator, and are perfectly accurate. It's not uncivil to call a lie a lie, and I won't pretend that nonsense that never happened is actually an accurate description of events. The proposal needs to either remain marked as failed or be moved out of project space. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not a lie; a lie implies intention to deceive and no reasonable Wikipedia editor would believe that the propose rhetoric is currently true. It's a rhetorical style; I'm not an English whiz but it seems like the simple non-past as described at Future tense. I concur that it is an unusual, confusing and inappropriate style for a proposal but that doesn't warrant classifying it as a lie. As the proposal is failed, it seems to be a moot point, in any event. Gerardw (talk) 10:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the text, keeping the core principles the same, but such that it is clear that it is actually something that is consistent with current policies. We do informally edit using a sort of government under some circumstances. Take e.g. the current dispute at WP:V, first it was agreed that Blueboar would work on a proposal, so that was a fe-facto election of a one person government, and now there is an unelected three person government deciding how to close the RFC on Blueboar's proposal, and just today it was decided that insufficient progress was made, so a notice was placed on WP:AN to help out with the closing.

So, by rewriting the text, starting with what already exists now and then describing that process in general terms instead of suggesting more formal rules, I can more or less get the same idea across without even having to get the text accepted as a new policy, as it is already firmly based on existing policy. This would deal with Beeblebrox's objection, he may still strongly object to it, but his problem is then with existing policies, not anything I propose. An RFC can be held to ask the community if the text accurately describes current practice on Wikipedia when I'm done.

The page should not be userfied, I think it is important to have a clear policy text that describes the process of how a Wiki-page that initially can be edited by anyone ends up being only editable by a small group of people. These rules do clearly exist at an informal level. Just try to edit in Blueboar's proposal into the WP:V text if you don't believe me, it does have 2/3 support of the community. And then note that User:Newyorkbrad can make that edit. Count Iblis (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since neither party thinks that userfication is a good idea, and that Beebelbrox thinks that the proposed policy does not belong, I'm going to recomend either going with a RfC to establish by consensus if the proposal is rejected or a MfD (with userfication being an option) to get it out of the wikipedia project space to remove it's assumed policy claims untill it's more likely to pass. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

MfD sounds like a good idea at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that the "proposal" has just been rewritten by me. It now reflects current practice on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well we obviously need to do something else since the Count apparently still does not understand the objections to his insistence that this page is something other than an idea that failed to gain any traction. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's been presented a way to go forward with this. I observe that nobody has elected to do one of the actions so I'm going to close this discussion down in 24 hours with the suggestions on how to move forward (RfC or MfD). Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness, but your powers of observation throughout this process have been decidely unimpressive. You seem to have missed, along with several other things, the fact that this has been at MFD since yesterday. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2011 (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.

Wilhelm Busch (pastor) discussion

Hi Stephfo, and thanks for posting here. I've read the discussion on the talk page as well as a few surrounding discussions, and I think I can see what the problem is. It looks like this is the section being disputed, and that the rationale of the other editors involved is that the section isn't really related to Busch all that much. I would not go as far as to say that all the information on Busch's legacy is irrelevant, but I do agree with the other editors that the sources from prochrist.org are not really adequate for proving a connection in this case. We really need reliable, third-party sources to establish a connection like this. If you can find such sources, then I think that it would be worth putting in the article. The points later in the section about Parzany and Billy Graham seem like one point too removed for us to include in the article, however - at that point the article is becoming more about Parzany than Busch.

I think the solution that User:Huon suggested on the talk page of creating a new article on Ulrich Parzany is a good one. I had a look on Google Books, and Parzany seems to be notable enough, though I'm not sure if we would be able to make the article all that detailed. From what I've seen it looks like you speak German, so you might be able to find more sources than I was able to. A new article about Parzany would mean that we could include material about both Busch and Billy Graham, and so we may be able to use the section you wrote (or an updated version of it). However, before we think about taking this course of action, I think we should check that writing about Parzany wouldn't violate your topic ban. If Parzany is a campaigner for creationism, for example, then that would seem to be within the scope of your topic ban, and you should not create the article or edit it if someone else creates it. If you are not sure, then I recommend getting the opinion of your mentor or an admin that you trust before proceeding. Let me know if this makes sense. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking Parzany is still with us? In which case WP:BLP would apply whether one says he supports creationism or Bayern Munich. Creating a stub article would not be an issue even if it states that Parzany supports a creationist viewpoint - as long as that's well sourced. It wouldn't be exactly surprising, as Billy Graham's organisation supports some form of creationism. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge Parzany is alive and well. My recent searches turned up little about his beliefs on creationism, but I was more interested in information regarding the Busch-Parzany connection and may have missed relevant sources. Huon (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mr.Stradivarus for your opinion, please let me know what exactly you have in mind when you specifically mention "connection" in your sentence "I would not go as far as to say that all the information on Busch's legacy is irrelevant, but I do agree with the other editors that the sources from prochrist.org are not really adequate for proving a connection in this case." Please let me also know what you think about these two sources:

1. Bauschke, Martin (2000). Jesus, Stein des Anstosses: die Christologie des Korans und die deutschsprachige Theologie [Jesus, the stumbling block: the Christology of the Koran and the German-language theology] (in German). Vol. 29. Köln, Weimar, Wien: Böhlau Verlag. pp. 257–504. ISBN 9783412076009. Retrieved 10 Dec 2011. Parzany ist Schüler und Mitarbeiter des Essener Pfarrers und evangelistischen Predigers Wilhelm Busch. (In English: Parzany is student and co-worker of the Essene pastor and evangelistic preacher Wilhelm Busch.)
2. Pracher, Günter-Manfred (2010). Bin ich wirklich verrückt, nur weil ich ein Christ bin?: Mein Credo zum ... (in German). Köln, Weimar, Wien: GRIN Verlag (www.grin.com). p. 68. ISBN 978-3-640-54547-6. Retrieved 10 Dec 2011. Nach eigener Aussage fand Ulrich Parzany 1955 im Weigle-Haus in Essen unter dem Einfluss des Jugendpfarrers Wilhelm Busch zum christlichen Glauben. (In English: According to his own testimony, Ulrich Parzany came to the Christian faith under the influence of youth pastor Wilhelm Busch in Weigle-Haus in Essen in 1955.)

Also, personally I take for awkward that in situation when someone like in here Parzany claims in his Biography that his life was influenced by Busch, then such claim should be required to be confirmed by a secondary source as this information is per se directly verifiable only with claimer himself/herself and any other sources cannot disprove it anyhow but rather just to duplicate it and correctly attribute it to the claimer himself/herself (cf. WP:ABOUTSELF "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;"). Any potential doubt wrt. authenticity or misrepresentation or accuracy (guarantee of what I believe the policy on secondary sources is there for) is in this case ruled out beforehand. Any secondary sources can only state what Parzany claimed, but to expect that any other source knows better than person himself/herseld what he/she believes he/she was influenced by would sound weird and personally I think that applying a policy on secondary sources in such case would be far-fetched and going against the spirit of such rule or Wikipedia generally, since common sense is something called to be applied when creating articles. Pls. advise. --Stephfo (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The second of those sources is a plagiarism from German Wikipedia; it's a copy of the first paragraph of their Parzany article's Leben section, and the article predates the book. There's a slight mistranslation in the first one; an "Essener Pfarrer" is not an Essene pastor, but a pastor from Essen. On a more general note, secondary sources can and often do say more about what influenced somebody than the person said himself. Here, however, the question is not whether or not Busch influenced Parzany, but whether that influence is relevant to Busch. A secondary source shows that people other than Parzany himself have taken note of the relation. Huon (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@Stephfo: About my wording of "connection", I probably could have phrased that better. I meant the same thing as Huon here - while the primary source in question does prove that Parzany considers himself influenced by Busch, it does not prove that this fact is relevant to Busch's life. Let me give an extreme example to illustrate my point. I could write on a blog that my guitar-playing style is influenced by Jimi Hendrix, but that doesn't mean that we should add information about me to Jimi Hendrix's article. There would be a lot more basis for adding information about me to the Jimi Hendrix article if a reliable third-party source wrote that I was influenced by Jimi Hendrix (not likely, but you never know) - but even then, adding it would likely be giving that information undue weight. So there are two things you need to consider in the case of Busch and Parzany: first, whether there is an explicit mention in a reliable third-party source that Busch influenced Parzany, and second, whether mentioning this in the article is not giving the fact undue weight. My feeling is that undue weight wouldn't be as much of a problem with Busch and Parzany as it would be with me and Jimi Hendrix, as Parzany is obviously much more well-known than I am; however, I am not all that familiar with the subject area and will leave this judgement up to other editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, about those sources - on first glance it appears that the first source is probably not adequate to prove that Busch influenced Parzany, as it only says that they were teacher and student. We could probably use this source to say that they were teacher and student, but we really need an explicit mention of influence to be able to claim that in the article. If the second source is a plagiarism, then we shouldn't use it at all, as that would be circular referencing, as well as possibly linking to a copyright violation. Even if both the sources looked fine, though, I would hesitate to judge that myself. Because I don't speak German, I can't see the context of the statements, and it is a lot harder for me to judge whether the sources are reliable or third-party. So there are still a lot of questions here. That doesn't mean that there aren't adequate sources out there, though - I suggest having a trawl through Google Books to see if you can find something good. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Mr.Stradivarius, however, honestly, I have a tough time to comprehend following point of yours: "it does not prove that this fact is relevant to Busch's life" --> I do not understand how in section dedicated to Busch' legacy (cf."something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past <the legacy of the ancient philosophers>"), supposedly relevant and significant to/for next generations, an backwards relevance link should had been necessary. Let us have a look at this comparable section: [] and please let me know, for example, how "Three members of the constitutional assembly in Eidsvoll" or Norwegians migrating to America, were relevant to Hauge's life (who very likely never been to America). Pls. advise which policy you are trying to apply in here? IMHO, in such section an information of exactly this type: "while the primary source in question does prove that Parzany considers himself influenced by Busch" should be provided and per my reasoning above the primary source should be sufficient, as to expect that secondary source would claim something like this: "no, dear Ulrich, you were not influenced by Busch and that's just your mirage you should try to forget about" sounds somewhat strange, and on top of that the accuracy of such information per spirit of WP (cf. “Adhering to the letter of policy, rather than the spirit, is destructive to the project”) is guaranteed, pls. comment. Thanks a lot for your patience. --Stephfo (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also one more thing I'd like to have better understanding, when we speak about circular reference: I'm not that much in music, but put the case Jimi Hendrix is not "with us" in wording used above, and you declare only afterwards that he influenced your style. Now what establishes the reliability of 3rd party source writing in one accord with you about this influence, where does this reliable source can have this information from? Pls., advise.--Stephfo (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed a simple way forward at Talk:Wilhelm Busch (pastor) . Stephfo has more or less written a stub article on Parzany at User:Stephfo. If he will allow some copyediting to make it OK to move to mainspace, then including a short sentence of the format "One of Busch's pupils was Ulrich Parzany, who said he was very influenced by Busch]] in the Busch article would cover the whole thing, and give us an article on Parzany to boot.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Stephfo has now moved the above referenced to User:Stephfo/Wilhelm Busch (pastor) so I'm guessing the answer to that is "no." Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeas, although it was not becasue of that, I just found better location/way for text version test. I also was adding source and posted rationale for my version at article discussion page. . Pls. Comment. --Stephfo (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stepho blocked, no need for further discussion. Gerardw (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (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.

Floppy disk hardware emulator discussion

Actually, you didn't notify all users at all. Myself, for example (Guy Macon pointed this out to me); and there are several other editors involved at that page. It looks to me like Guy Macon's concerns that you are Blackvisionit are well-founded, given that your edits are substantially similar to his, and due to the other real-world connections (all revealed on WP, no outing here). Are you saying that you are not User:Blackvisionit, and that the two of you have just made substantially similar edits, including edits that seem to bias the page in favor of products with which you have a COI? I find the edit summary on this diff particularly telling, given that neither your IP nor any other IP seems to have been editing the article at the time the last flare-up occurred. And, assuming you are Blackvisionit, then you've already been instructed that any edits biasing the article in favor of particular companies or types of emulators will result in a block. Is that what you're looking for here? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be an error in the "this diff" link above. Perhaps you meant to link to this diff? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Guy Macon's diff is the correct one. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Blackvisionit (who I have good reason to believe to be 137.204.148.73) owns a company that sells one particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator - the kind that is used on IBM-Compatible PCs. The content dispute is about whether the page should treat all floppy disk hardware emulators - PC, Mac, Commodore, Atari, various music synths - equally or whether it should be focused on the particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator that Blackvisionit sells.

Also, at the top of this page under "Purpose of this noticeboard", it says "This noticeboard is not for disputes which have been carried out only through edit summaries or which have not received substantial discussion on a talk page." 137.204.148.73 has engaged in zero talk page discussion despite multiple requests from multiple editors that he do so and has instead engaged in edit warring (He is currently at 3RR).

On a personal note, I welcome close scrutiny of my behavior. Nobody likes being told that they did something wrong, but I am well aware that I sometimes need correction. I have Asperger's syndrome and benefit greatly from any comments about my behavior and relationships with others. In my case, criticism is not rude - it is very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated list of recent administrative actions regarding IP Address 137.204.148.73

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:137.204.148.73 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No action right now.)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Floppy disk hardware emulator (Closed)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Active "hunt & attack" by editor

--Guy Macon (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2011 (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.

USB discussion

Hi there, I'm a mediator are the DRN and aim to help bring this to a resolution. The issues seems to be whether USB is the most common name, whether any other uses of USB are of equal importance and whether Wikipedia policies would allow the use of an acronym in this case. It seems to me that we need to first determine whether USB is the most common name for a Universal Serial Bus, then we can look at whether any other uses are important. If USB is the most common form, then policy would allow the article to be named USB. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a non-issue. Since the move, only two editors have expressed any significant distaste with the close (the other being M Nowicki, whose second comment of two in said discussion was considerably less strident than the first). CrispMuncher's sole argument is that the evidence presented in favour of the common use argument doesn't meet his personal standards: he hasn't provided any counterevidence, instead relying on an interpretation of the words "almost exclusively" in WP:TITLEFORMAT which doesn't seem to match practice in the wild. Additionally, CrispMuncher, after having continued to dispute the move and being repeatedly refuted by editors in the process, labelled this as "one of the worst admin abuses I have seen here". Rather, it was a strong admin close based on weight of argument against head count. The relative lack of disquiet regarding that (consider that it took the most bitterly opposing editor in said discussion three months to bring it here even though he's been moderatively active, to the tune of >300 edits, throughout) does not suggest that this was a controversial or abusive close. There would certainly be no chance that consensus would favour a move back from the present stable title if enacted today, so this isn't an active dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• I am torn over this. On one hand, I feel that User:RegentsPark's close of the discussion based on a supposed "consensus" was plainly wrong. On the other hand, the issue is really trivial and I don't particularly care whether it is reversed. I am commenting because I am bothered by the way Regent Park has defended his or her actions even after being challenged, and would like to see some discussion of that so that this admin will be more circumspect when closing discussions in the future. The issue is really trivial because the only difference between the two sides is whether Universal Serial Bus should be a redirect to USB, or USB should be a redirect to Universal Serial Bus. Either way, readers who search for either of these terms or who click on a link will see the same article.

There was a discussion, in which I participated and opposed the renaming. The result of the discussion was 2 in favor of renaming, and 5 opposed. RegentsPark closed the discussion and proclaimed that "USB is clearly the common name for this thing." Well, with all due respect, that was exactly the question that we were discussing, and five of us felt that it was not the common name. When challenged, RegentsPark responded with "Bear in mind that these are discussions, not polls, and vote counting is not the way that consensus is determined. (See WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:Consensus.)" I suggest taking a close look at both of those policy pages. WP:NOTAVOTE tells us that polling can be detrimental to the formation of consensus; it points out that the goal of discussions is to develop consensus. It does not suggest anywhere that an administrator can either ignore or impose a consensus that does not exist among involved users. WP:Consensus says "that the decision-making process involves an active effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting community norms." It also says that "Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy."

I think RegentsPark misconstrued these guidelines as giving the closing editor unrestrained discretion to ignore any views with which he or she does not agree. I don't see the guidelines as allowing that. The issue on which the discussion turned is whether the subject in question is known "almost exclusively" by its abbreviation. Now, if (hypothetically), users had been saying, "well, yes, the thing is known exclusively by its initials, but I don't care and think it ought to be spelled out anyway," then RegentsPark would have been justified in discounting that argument as contrary to the broader consensus established in WP:TITLEFORMAT. But that is not how the discussion took place. Users who opposed the move, including me, stated that they did not believe the use of the acronym was so universal as to meet the fairly limited exception allowed by WP:TITLEFORMAT. That is a question of fact, and I freely acknowledge that if other users had presented more detailed evidence on the use of the abbreviation before the discussion was closed, I might have been persuaded to change my mind. Basically, RegentsPark just decided that the majority of the users participating in the discussion were wrong about this factual question (how the term "USB" is used in the real world), and so their arguments were "weaker" than the pro-move arguments. In reality, both sides were equally valid in terms of Wikipedia policies; it just boiled down to an "is too -- is not" argument about whether the abbreviation is used widely enough to fall within that policy.

Finally, I suggest that RegentsPark violated WP:NOTVOTE by shutting down the discussion prematurely instead of allowing time for the involved editors to present additional facts and perhaps find common ground.

Apologies to all for going on at such length over such a trivial issue, but the process bothers me even though the outcome doesn't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerkish note: Just for the record, also see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/26 November 2011/Universal Serial Bus. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Chris. I agree that the issue seems to have gone stale and is not an active dispute. In closing the recent Mediation Cabal case, Steven Zhang suggested that, if anyone still opposed the current page name, a requested move should take place to determine consensus according to policy; I would concur with that judgement. Therefore, I will close this, advising anyone wishing to pursue the matter to heed Steven's advice. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for that premature closure. I opted to close the discussion before anyone else contributed; however, there seems to now be discussion taking place. My poor internet connection meant I missed that. That was my mistake - I apologise for that. I've reopened this and will allow full discussion to take place. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the proponents of the move have consistently failed to back up their points is the reason the debate has gone stale, and as indicated above this is the very reason this has been filed. I have repeatedly attempted to elicit further evidence without success. Giving editors time is not the same as conceding the point.

I am aware that I can of course file a new move request at any time. I have chosen not to and this is a considered position for two principal reasons:

• Firstly, this was moved based on a disputed consensus. If it is found theat there is in fact no consensus the move should be reversed in favour of the previous status quo. If a new move request is made the presumption is again that the status quo remains, but this time the new status quo based on that same improper judgment.
• Secondly, this is an issue that goes beyond merely what a particular article is called. I feel RegentsPark has been selective in interpretation of policy and has not properly addressed the concerns raised on the talk page. I will be explicit here and note that I am not suggesting any malice or the deliberate advancement of a particular position on his or her part. However, when issues of admin oversight and accountability are raised, I believe those are worthy of thorough review regardless of the underlying issue. Again, this is an issue that would simply be left ignored by a simple filing of a move request. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• You asked for evidence that the predominant use was of the abbreviation. Multiple editors provided examples, both anecdotal and statistical. That you were dissatisfied with the presented evidence is not in itself proof that it was inadequate. As to the idea that the discussion went stale due to inactivity on behalf of proponents of the move, the last evidence provided was on behalf of the proponents and seems (at least from the POV of the editor who provided it, i.e. me) to explicitly address the demand made of it (it is an assertion by an authoritative secondary source backing up the assertion of predominant use). Your response to this appears to have been to stick your fingers in your ears for six weeks before shopping for a better venue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I did not judge that reference worthy of a response. Rightly or wrongly I perceived the tone of your remarks as sarcastic. However, one example does not indicate anything in relation to the almost exclusive test. Indeed, the fact the author felt the need to use the full form before introducing the acronym itself speaks volumes. As for "statistical" methods, Google is not a reliable source as was noted before those figures were advanced and you've been around here long enough to know what is and isn't acceptable. Even if we were to lower our usual standards those results show the full form in widespread use: remember, we do not need to demonstrate the full form is more common. Rather, the onus is on you to demonstrate that the expanded form is used only rarely. There has been no attempt to demonstrate that. Without that the current assertion that an exception to the general presumption against initialisms applies doesn't stack up. With that the current claim of consensus also fails. I've asked for proper evidence. It hasn't been forthcoming. It is still not forthcoming. You call this forum shopping if you like but I reject that. Where is your evidence? Crispmuncher (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC).

This is somewhere in between proving a negative ("prove that the long form is not commonly used") and no true Scotsman (multiple pieces of evidence have been rejected on grounds of inadequacy because... well, Crispmuncher deems them inadequate). The problem here is not one of sourcing: it is one of an overlay strict reading of the "nearly exclusive" test which deems anything less universally used than "laser" to be in need of expansion. The guidelines are not normative: they are descriptive of best practice and of documented consensus, and the dominant consensus at this point can clearly be shown (through dozens of page moves like this one) to favour a less strict interpretation which is more compatible with WP:COMMONNAME. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a valid position to adopt; however it certainly isn't one that can simply be asserted and closed on that basis without discussion. It is clear that the default position with respect to policy is to favour the expanded form. There should be a very strong case to over-ride that default presumption. The examples given are not overly helpful (there are only two of them) but let's consider "laser" for a moment. In the case of laser that is by far and away the more familiar term: people are familiar with lasers and what they do without reference to the expanded form which may not even be recognised at first sight. If you ask someone "what is a laser?" you are likely to get back an answer based on what it is and what it does, the acronym expansion is likely to be a secondary detail given if at all. That isn't the case the for USB, where the full form has much greater usage, and greater recognition. A simple explanation what USB is may amount to little more than an expansion of the abbreviation. These are things that are qualitatively different between USB and the given examples. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC).

• Got a note about this. To be honest, I don't feel very "involved" – I made one comment in June and have never been back. As is probably obvious from my vote at the RM, I agree with RegentPark's closure (and indeed commend him for it, as many admins are afraid to make closures against the weight of numbers, despite WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CONSENSUS and so on). Anyway, I still believe the article should be at "USB" as it is clearly the common name and is analogous to {{NATO]], Laser, etc. I don't think anyone has disputed that, though I do agree with R'n'B that perhaps myself or Chris should have provided more evidence, even though we thought it was incredibly obvious. Anyway, seeing as this was closed five months ago, my suggestion would be to just start a new RM where it can be fully hashed out and closed by a different uninvolved admin. Jenks24 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really have much to say here except what I said in my close of the original move discussion. Consensus is not based on vote counting but on the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. If the editors involved in a discussion are not able to agree on where the consensus lies, the determination is made by any uninvolved editor in good standing. I evaluated the arguments in my close (see particularly the elaboration) and, on rereading all that I think I did a pretty good job. I'm definitely not an involved editor and, hopefully, am in good standing. Given these two factors, I believe my close was proper and acceptable. Finally, I'm not sure why I'm labelled an involved party here. If the dispute is about the article title, I have no interest in the matter. If there is evidence of misuse of my admin tools, then this is not a dispute resolution situation but rather something that should be taken up at WP:ANI. It is unclear to me which particular issue is the focus of this DR and it would be helpful if that were clarified. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

As a regular mediator/clerk here at DRN (but see the important disclaimer at the end of this note), I'm having trouble seeing what benefit additional discussion is going to have here. If this is about RegentsPark's conduct as a sysop, then this forum is expressly not for things that are primarily conduct disputes and, as he says, it needs to go to WP:ANI, if it goes anywhere at all. If it's about the page move, then there's not been any new substantial discussion about it for months and it needs to go back to the article talk page for further discussion or for a new move request. or both. Frankly, just off the top of my head the current title — USB — seems to be correct per snowy common sense as well as for the reasons cited by RegentsPark in his original and supplemental closing notes, but that's just my opinion. Disclaimer: I may not be regarded as entirely neutral in this matter as I count RegentsPark among my friends and he was one of the co-nominators at my (failed) RfA. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediator comment - This discussion seems to be about two main issues: the name of the article and RegentsPark's conduct in closing the requested move. As DRN is for content issues only, I would ask that editors refrain from discussing RegentsPark's conduct, motives or anything else (unless directly linked to a content issue). If conduct is an issue, I advise taking it to WP:ANI. I agree with the sentiment that this debate had gone stale and DRN is not the best place; however, as discussion is already underway, I feel it would be excessively bureaucratic to close the discussion (if another mediator disagrees, it is to their discretion as to whether they close it). However, we do need constructive discussion here. A lot of convincing evidence has been provided to suggest that USB is the most common name; as yet, the counter-evidence has been insufficient. If anyone can give actual evidence to the contrary (not criticisms of the quality of evidence which, in total, seems sufficient), please do so. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Coming in late. I have mostly retired from Wikipedia, partially due to time-wasting disussions like this. The guidelines clearly state to "Avoid abbreviations" and the exceptions do not apply, since even the official group's page spells it out, as well as other reliable sources. Nothing to do with "common name". Especially since in computer technology "common" names change so quickly. Just a matter of time and the acronym will be most commonly used for something else. That is why a "no consensus" close would have been the correct one. But I would suggest to make changes to Wikipedia that will last, not ones that will soon be undone. W Nowicki (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2011 (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.