Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 134

Summary of dispute by Malik_Shabazz

Summary of dispute by anon phone user

Summary of dispute by 69.126.163.14

Talk:Institutional racism#Removed_Section_.22In_America.27s_Original_Sin.22 discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been marginally sufficient discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties; it is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other parties. The filing party also listed a non-existent user. The filing party is requested to notify the other editors and to review who the parties to the dispute as to see whether to add someone in place of the non-existent user. I am neither opening nor declining this case, but it cannot be opened until the other parties are notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Other editors have been commenting at the article talk page since the filing of this case. The filing party has not yet notified the other editors of this case. The filing party should also add the other participating editors and should notify them also. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Ianmacm

I would end up repeating the the posts that I've already made at Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Photo_of_gun, so this is my summary. Please read the thread there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It is very much not standard practice in articles about mass shootings to show photos of the guns used. A wikilink is given and the reader can follow it. User:Tapered was adding images of guns from Commons which were not the actual guns used in the shooting anyway. This is seriously misleading and carries the risk that the image looks nothing like the actual gun used in the shooting. The actual Bushmaster used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook is shown in a photograph from the official investigation here. Tapered wanted to add this image from Commons, a shiny brand new gun which looks nothing like Lanza's gun. In any case, all this does is to repeat the image in the infobox of Bushmaster M4-type Carbine, which is the proper place for this image; it has nothing to do with Sandy Hook. I'm disappointed that this has ended up at a noticeboard because Tapered insisted on adding the Commons image despite its problems with WP:PERTINENCE and encylopedic value in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This was pointed out by other users. The image of the actual gun is copyrighted, but even if it was free, the consensus is that showing it would not add much to the article. There is a similar thread at Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, where there is a clear consensus against having an image of a generic gun for the same reasons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Masem

I initially saw a dispute between using a non-free image of the actual weapon(s) used and free images of the same weapons, but put forth the notion that even the free images may not be appropriate per MOS:IMAGE and WP:GRATUITOUS, as I can see some objecting to the weapon images as off-putting given the nature of the incident (eg glorifying the weapons used); the article works without seeing any images of the weapons, free or not. I strongly reject the notion this is censorship, since we still name the weapons and link to pages about them, and strongly take offense that my adminship is being questioned here since I've not used any admit bit powers here in the dispute. --MASEM (t) 15:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shearonink

I am not sure what encyclopedic purpose the photo of the murder weapon serves. The image is a photograph of a generic gun/assault weapon/etc of the type used in this killing spree/mass murder/shooting (not images of the actual weapon/s). Does the image add information to the article? Yes, but the real crux for me is the information needed? Throughout Wikipedia, editorial discretion and editorial consensus are called for regarding this online encyclopedia we are all creating. I think my issue with using this images and others like it in articles about recent mass murders/killing sprees is the difference between history & news - readers will have a different reaction to the derringer John Wilkes Booth used to kill Abraham Lincoln than they will to an image representing the weapon used to kill schoolchildren within our memory. When people go to read the Sandy Hook article, they want information about what happened there, who the heroes were, what the response was like, what weapons were used, what the immediate aftermath was and what the continuing cultural and political fallout are. They are not coming to this article for all the information that is available on the Internet about Sandy Hook - the theories, the details, the killer's surviving family-members, the relatives of the victims...in my opinion the Wikilinkage to the articles about the guns is sufficient. Readers who want to then delve further into the weaponry can do so. Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. This case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it is ready to be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I will open it in about 45 minutes, once I'm at a computer. KSFT^C 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm the volunteer for this case, and I am now opening it. Shearonink, could you summarize the dispute in the space above? Ianmacm, it would be helpful if you summarized the dispute here to make sure everyone understands what the disagreement is, unless you agree with Masem's summary. KSFT^C 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered:, can you respond here to the above reasoning by Shearonink, Masem, and Ianmacm? KSFT^C 13:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lanza family's rifle, a Bushmaster, was a vital component of the murders. As per the MOS, it's “directly relevant” to the subject. As such its image deserves inclusion.

@Ianmacm “Standard practice” needs to agree with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia encourages “directly relevant” images. If it's directly relevant and and doesn't violate other guidelines, it ought not to be excluded. This particular standard practice doesn't agree with the guidelines. Re the objections to verisimilitude, the MOS:IMAGES states, “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic.” So, the concensus @ Talk:2013 Santa Monica shooting, or any similar concensus, contravenes Wikipedia's guidelines.

@Masem The guidelines' example for gratuitous is the use of a pornographic image as an anatomical illustration. On the face of it, the photo used doesn't meet that test. In addition, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of firearms photos @ Wikipedia. Short of physically superimposing one on a scene of carnage, no firearms photo can be considered inherently gratuitous.

Wikpedia describes censorship thusly: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. “...as I can see some objecting to the weapon images as off-putting given the nature of the incident (eg glorifying the weapons used); the article works without seeing any images of the weapons, free or not,” at least condones catering to certain readers' “social...norms,” which meets the definition of censorship. As such it has no validity. Editing to avoid inflaming an already disturbed individual who might glorify a weapon because it was used for indiscriminate slaughter is equally invalid, (though adding an image to deliberately inflame disturbed minds would be grounds for banishment). I'm going to defer a response on the personal issues, for now.

@Shearonink The essential undergirding of the argument here is, 'Some images may be unnecessary, here's why this one is unnecessary.' If an image is “directly relevant” to an article, the 'bar' for unnecessary is very high, requiring very strong reasons. These aren't. The argument rambles, but at its core is the comparison between the Lincoln Assassination and Sandy Hook, and the fact that readers may have a less pleasant, more intense emotional reaction to a picture of a readily available weapon used in recent history, than to an antique museum piece used in a historical murder 150 years ago. Editing to spare readers emotions (tied to social norms) at the expense of relevant information/images, unless the images are gratuitous, meets the above definition of censorship. The argument fails. Tapered (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Afterthought. The inclusion of the derringer in the Lincoln Assassination article is a strong argument for inclusion of the Bushmaster in this article. Tapered (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I was asked to come to this page and give a summary of the dispute as I saw it. I did so above - I said what I meant and I meant what I said. I think a discussion of the issues on including or not including images of this gun is valuable. I think editorial consensus is valuable. I think working together to come to an agreement between all the interested parties is valuable. I really don't give a flying crap if my summary is perfect or if it is not, these were my thoughts, I took the time and the effort to set something down on the subject. My thoughts on the subject have worth, regardless of whether or not I perfectly cite relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All we are attempting to do here is trying to decide if some information should be included or not, that's a decision we all make every time we take up our keyboards and write - what words, which sources, and so on. Shearonink (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We know what Adam Lanza's Bushmaster looked like and a link is given to it in the article. There is no need to dash off to Commons to find an an image of a Bushmaster which is a) not the murder weapon and b) is a shiny new gun on somebody's floor that looks nothing like the murder weapon. The image fails WP:PERTINENCE on these grounds alone, even before you start to consider whether it is necessary to say "Here is what a Bushmaster looks like" just in case the reader was too lazy to click on a wikilink.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

To come at this from the angle I was involved: if the only image of a Bushmaster gun (whether the one Lanza used or any other one) was via non-free, NFCC would immediately dismiss that use since observing the gun's image is not necessary to understand the nature of the crime (as best as I've seen, there was nothing "special" about Lanza's weapon, it was just the gun used). So now when we do have a free image of a similar gun, one still must ask "is this image really serving to help the reader understand the crime". I agree it is a germane image, no doubt, but the reader doesn't learn anything new by seeing it, and if they really need to see it, it is one link away. So it's addition is not critical here. Then from the angle that I believe that it would insensitive to include it, that's gives even more reason to omit. I recognize that there is a fine line between censoring and editorial consensus, but we are definitely not censoring because the gun's still named and linked in the article, we are just choosing to omit an image that would otherwise draw attention to the weapon for no reason. That's definitely not censoring. The comparison to the use of the weapon image in Assassination of Abraham Lincoln is a much different case in that we are talking about an assassination of a sitting President (a much more influential crime), and that enough time has passed that the event is more of academic interest and not of emotional one, such that there has been significant interest on the specific weapon and how the assassination was carried out, something not there for the Sandy Hook situation. Maybe in time that will come for Sandy Hook, but it is not there now. Hence, editorial decisions to omit the image are completely in line with WP policies and practice. --MASEM (t) 17:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered: Can you respond to these points in the posts above by Masem and Ianmacm? KSFT^C 17:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: external link included

@Shearonink The response seems to interpret my arguments as a personal attack, and responds with a defense. I did criticize the response as rambling, but made no personal attack. This doesn't address the points made vis a vis the Guidelines, so I can't make an informative/logical response.

@Ianmacm Ianmacm may know the appearance of a Bushmaster, but many other readers don't. The illustration is intended for those readers. Wikpedia/MOS simply doesn't demand journalistic verisimilitude: “Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic,” so it's a mistake to insist an actual picture of the weapon itself. A reasonable facsimile, such as the image in question, is sufficient--again, to repeat, according to the guidelines. Regarding wikilinks as an alternative to images and "lazy readers" who don't click the links, if that logic is extended throughout the encyclopedia, all images would be replaced by links inviting readers to click and see a relevant image. It would make pages less crowded. Also, although the discussion needs be fact and debate based, I think that "lazy" label reads like an insult to the general readership.

@Masem Masem also seems to me to assume that many readers know what a bushmaster is. The most recent [statistics] indicate its article is viewed about 4000 times per month, a low number, so to assume that the rifle's appearance is common knowledge isn't justified. "Critical:" Wikipedia, wisely in IMO, doesn't require that images be "critical"--read vital--just relevant. There is nothing in the guidelines about a "fine line between censoring and editorial concensus," and when this is over, I'm going to drop that in Jimbo Wales talk page, which is in point of fact a sort of debate forum, for reaction. If editors are editing to avoid offense, without apparent external pressure, that's censorship--internal censorship, which IMO is more effective and pernicious than the overt form. As I read it, all censorship is verboten here: excision of the gratuitous is policy. A simple firearms image, of there are at least hundreds, fails gratuitous. To sum up, for purposes of this discussion: if it ain't gratuitous--it's censorship. Tapered (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@Masem:, @Ianmacm:, @Shearonink:, @Tapered: We aren't reaching a consensus here, so I'm closing this as failed. I have started an RFC here. KSFT^C 04:51, 4 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Jojit

Talk:My Bebe_Love#Critical_response_section_is_not_neutral discussion

Could you give a brief overview of the dispute in the section above? Your current description doesn't tell me what the dispute is about. KSFT^C 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't agree whether the film has received negative or mixed reviews. Hollyckuhno (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer note: The other involved user has not been notified of this case. The case can't be opened until they have been notified. KSFT^C 14:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer note: An opinion on this issue was requested at WP:3O and provided (by me). Hopefully that opinion will remove any need for this case. DonIago (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I have corrected the name of the second editor in this dispute. The editor must still be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by 32.97.110.58

Summary of dispute by Robert McClenon

Summary of dispute by 98.227.140.14

Talk:Uechi-ryū 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.

Summary of dispute by Abishai 300

Summary of dispute by Theophilus144

Summary of dispute by TransporterMan

I have provided an unsolicited opinion at the article talk page (wearing my "regular editor" hat rather than my "dispute resolution" hat) saying, in effect, that this dispute is at this point premature because the source, the ministry's tax filing, for the leadership section in dispute is unacceptable under WP:BLPPRIMARY as the use of a public record to support a statement about living persons. Until a proper source can be provided for that material, this dispute is meaningless and I would recommend closure for that reason. I will probably not take further part in this case, but reserve the right to make a final decision on that matter after things develop further. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Living Stream_Ministry#Addressing_the_conflict_over_the_Inclusion_of_the_.22Leadership.22_Section discussion

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing of this case. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but this case cannot be accepted until proper notice is given to the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Zmenglish

Summary of dispute by Wiki1259

By not allowing the original 'Jewfro2.jpg' image to remain in the article, the precedent that is being set is that any user, at any time, can replace longstanding images across Wikimedia simply because they don't like them, regardless of the quality of the image and how it contributes to the overall article. This could prove to be extremely disruptive and subject to widespread pranks and trolling.

The original picture, 'Jewfro2.jpg' had been in place for the previous 8 years, is used in multiple Wikipedia articles, including the List of hairstyles, is one of the top image results in Google for the keyword "Jewfro", and has been featured on several other articles around the Internet. There used to be an independent page for "Jewfro" between 2007-2009, and 'Jewfro2.jpg' was the sole image displayed on that page and was migrated over to the "Afro" page when the two merged.

User Zmenglish replaced the image with no discussion or edit explanations. When asked to explain his alteration, he insisted that the original image was racist, and insulted it as grotesque, which is simply not the case. The continued switching of the images does nothing to improve the overall quality of the article, which has been at peace ever since the "Jewfro" article merged into the parent "Afro" article. The 'Jewfro2.jpg" image has served it's purpose of providing a visual aid to this section of the "Afro" article for quite a long time.

Summary of dispute by Loriendrew

Procedurally close this thread: dispute already registered above, failure to notify participents, false accusations (I attempted mediation, did not upload anything).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Afro#Similar styles_internationally discussion

• Volunteer note - There have been statements on the article talk page about this dispute and the previous one (which are really the same). However, there has not been anything resembling discussion. Not all of the editors who have been involved have been listed. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am recommending that it be declined without prejudice to allow talk page discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Also, the other editor has not been notified of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Pathmaraman

Talk:Jaffna Airport#Request for Comment discussion

Volunteer note: There was already a discussion about this involving these two editors. It reached a pretty clear consensus to include the crest and move the page back. Pathmaraman's arguments were a little rambly and didn't cite any policies or guidelines, so I'm not sure if they have legitimate responses. To clarify, it looks like there is a consensus already from the talk page discussion. Everyone except Pathmaraman agreed that it would be better to include the crest. Pathmaraman's responses to them were unclear, so I'm not completely sure if he had legitimate points, but it looks like everyone else had solid reasons to include it. KSFT^C 13:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - If other editors besides the two parties discussed the edits, shouldn't they be invited to participate in the discussion here? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The other editors weren't part of the dispute, they were just commenting on the Rfc after being canvassed by Pathmaraman. I have nevertheless left a note on their talk pages inviting them to participate in this discussion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: My original reverts and RfC are on Name Change and Removal of the Crest, but it turned into different direction when the Editor in Dispute brought the examples of Indian Airports: Agra Airport, Allahabad Airport, Bareilly Airport, Kanpur Airport which are with "Roundel" for a demonstration to me. Since there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports, I have changed Jaffna Airport with AirForce Roundel. The Editor in Dispute doesn't state any valid reasons why Jaffna Airport should be selectively kept with Crest. And no one has stated anywhere in the discussion other than the Editor in Dispute the Crest should be included other than the Roundel.Pathmaraman (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pathmaraman: it is you who is going against the consensus that had existed for more than two years so it is you who needs to provide arguments using policies and guidelines as why the crest should not be used in the infobox. As mentioned above, to date you have not provided any policy reason as to why the crest cannot be used.

You know very well that I used the Indian airports examples in response to your suggestion that military crests can't be used on civilian airports. It was not meant to suggest that the SLAF roundel should be used on Sri Lankan airports. Whilst there is consensus for using the IAF roundel on Indian airports, no consensus exists for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports. No other Sri Lankan airport uses the SLAF roundel but several (i.e. Ampara Airport, Batticaloa Airport, China Bay Airport and Vavuniya Airport) use their SLAF contingent crests. Your addition of the Sri Lankan air force roundel to Jaffna Airport is another example of you taking unilateral action, without any consensus.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There can't different standards for Indian Airports and Sri Lankan Airports; all are WikiSpace. If there is a consensus for Indian Airports to use Roundel, then it could be applied all the Airports on WikiSpace.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

And all the Sri Lankan Airports Crests have been uploaded by you, not by several editors.Pathmaraman (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer note: There's a discussion here anyway, so I'm formally opening this case. KSFT^C 13:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We can, and do, have different "standards" for different articles, that's the whole point of consensus. A group of editors may come to a consensus that an article, or group of articles, are subject to differing standards. But this consensus isn't applied universally, it's only applied to the articles that were the subject of the consensus building. For example, WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. But as this consensus was only discussed in respect of India related articles, it cannot be applied to other articles. It cannot, for example, be used to exclude Sinhala and Tamil script from the lede in Sri Lanka.

Wikipedia policies can override consensus. However, you have failed to provide any policy to override the consensus which existed.

Although I did add the crest, no one else has objected to their inclusion in over two years. Therefore we can assume that there was consensus for their inclusion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

When we create Wikipedia articles, we should give importance to the geographical sentiments of the people since one factor of the Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war is language policy itself. So the Roundel will serve the purpose than the Crest, because the Crest is with Sinhala language alone. That is the reason WikiProject India have decided that regional language script should not be included in the lede. That is also the reason Indian Airports are with Roundel alone. It is because no one has objected more than two years doesn't mean there is a consensus. We can ask other Tamil editors whether I am wrong.Pathmaraman (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"Geographical sentiment" isn't a Wikipedia policy. Can you provide evidence to show that the use of IAF roundels and WP:INDICSCRIPT are as a result of "geographical sentiment"? Please read WP:EDITCONSENSUS again - "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". The inclusion of the crests was not disputed or reverted for more than two years. Why should we ask Tamil editors - is Wikipedia a Tamil project?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jaffna's 90% population is Tamils and an Airport which is used for civilian purpose as well, should remain either neutral or in Tamil. Tamil editors' opinions sre needed here.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@Pathmaraman: You claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel in the Indian Airports". I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right? Otherwise you would agree with Obi2canibe and there would be no dispute. If I'm right, could you provide a link to that consensus? KSFT^C 20:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "I assume you mean that there's a consensus not to include it, right?"; if "no dispute for more than 2 years" could be interpreted as Consensus, then Indian Airports Roundel usage also could be considered as Consensus.Pathmaraman (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You claimed that there was a consensus about the use of the crest. I wasn't sure whether you meant the consensus was for or against its inclusion, so I took a guess. I guessed that it wasn't for its inclusion, because that would undermine your argument. KSFT^C 00:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

There were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage. Pathmaraman (talk) 11:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any policy based argument from you Pathmaraman, just emotional ones. I'm afraid I'm going to have to repeat myself - there was consensus for use of the SLAF crest because Jaffna Airport and several other Sri Lankan airports have had SLAF crests for more than two years without any objection. But you are correct in one thing - there was no consensus for using the SLAF roundel on Sri Lankan airports but you nevertheless added it unilaterally.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: The discussion at this point does not, at least on quick examination, seem to be making any real progress. I'm going to ask the parties to hold off on any further discussion until the lead volunteer on this case, KSFT, can provide some additional structure. If you wish to continue discussing at the article talk page you are, of course, free to continue to do so, but it would be much better if you would both simply hold off from further discussion and editing in relation to the matters in dispute until KSFT weighs in. His/her remarks and any further comments or discussion should go after this Coordinator's note, by the way. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

@Pathmaraman: Can you explain the discrepancy between this edit and this one? Specifically, I'm asking about why you claimed that "there is a consensus for the use of AirForce Roundel" in the first one, and then that "[t]here were no consensus either for Roundel or Crest usage" in the second one. obi2canibe is correct that citing policy and quoting the relevant parts would help your argument.

@Obi2canibe: Repeating yourself doesn't help progress the discussion. While you're right that silence implies consensus, there is not silence; Pathmaraman objects. You need to cite established policies that support the inclusion of the crest, not implied consensus that doesn't exist anymore. KSFT^C 22:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus can change and by objecting to the inclusion of the SLAF crest, Pathmaraman has challenged the consensus. But he has not gained consensus for his proposals either as no-one else has supported the removal of the crest. In the Rfc only one other editor commented on the crest, Zyxw, and he has stated that he doesn't "see a problem with keeping the SLAF crest in the article".

In this discussion I provided five WP:RS to show that the airport was controlled by the SLAF. I have therefore complied with WP:V to support the inclusion of a SLAF image in the infobox. The airport infobox document provides an example of usage on air force bases (Example 4 Wright-Patterson Air Force Base). This example doesn't use the USAF roundel, it uses crest of the Air Force Materiel Command, a USAF unit based at the air force base. Therefore, by using the crest of the SLAF contingent based at Jaffna Airport we are following the recommendation of the creators of the infobox.

One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia. In an encyclopedia article on Jaffna Airport readers would expect to see an image specifically related to the subject (crest) in the infobox, not a general image (roundel). Image use policy states that images should directly depict the activities described in the article. In this respect the crest is a better choice than the roundel. And as the image use policy also states, Wikipedia is not censored so we cannot remove the crest simply because it upsets Pathmaraman or others.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Zyxw mentioned that the Crest usage is OK before I brought the Roundel into the scene. If Obi2Canibe can take the example of US Crest usage into consideration, why can't we take the Indian Roundel usage.....? Pathmaraman (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Obi2canibe cited the example set by that template, which implies that the crest should be included. Can you explain what you mean by the second part of that sentence, "why can't we take the Indian Roundel usage"? KSFT^C 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Side note: I have removed your accusation of wikilawyering, because it isn't relevant to the discussion. KSFT^C 22:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Obi2canibe has taken the wrong example. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is ONLY used for military purposes, if they want they can use the Crest. But Jaffna Airport is used both military and civilian purposes like the Indian Airports, Kanpur Airport, Bareilly Airport, Allahabad Airport and Agra Airport; in this cases a Roundel is more applicable.Pathmaraman (talk) 08:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to KSFT for trying to mediate. Please close this discussion.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I will let the primary moderator act on the discussion to close the case, but will suggest that the next step might be a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

As Pathmaraman is not attempting to have a useful discussion about policy, we aren't getting anywhere, so I'm closing this case as failed. I agree with Robert McClenon's recommendation of an RFC. KSFT^C 23:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks KSFT for your time and effort with other editors; I think another RfC is the only option with the participation of other Tamil editors since the Crest usage is more geographically sensitive as I have already suggested.Pathmaraman (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Lazylaces

I stopped after they told me to stop. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 07:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Responses to_sneezing#List_of_responses_in_other_languages 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.

Summary of dispute by bgillesp

The Barony of Blackhall 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.

Summary of dispute by

Talk:Non-aggression principle#The_NAP_is_absolutely_not_the_defining_principle_of_libertarianism. discussion

• Volunteer note - There is only one editor listed, the filing party. Other editors have discussed, but there has not been an adequate exchange, just multiple statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2016 (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.

Summary of dispute by Toddy1

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kaz-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vadcat, which YuHuw has opened today. I imagine that the reason for opening this SPI was that Vadcat reverted an edit by User:Budo in 2012. Budo was blocked for being a sock of User:Kaz.

The policy for dispute resolution noticeboard is that "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves." Given that the dispute features in two sockpuppet investigation reports, this item should be rejected.- Toddy1 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sock-puppet investigations are not dispute resolution forums. You are still being belligerent. You need to calm down. How did you know about the Vadcat investigation by the way? Are you WP:HOUNDING me? YuHuw (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by User:Неполканов

Talk:Karait discussion

• Volunteer note - Some of the problems here may result from the fact that the subject page was moved and a disambiguation page was created, and now a subject talk page is attached to a disambiguation page. Some experienced editor (I will try) needs to reconnect the articles and their talk page. Also, the filing party has not yet notified the other editors. There has been discussion on article talk pages, but, possibly due to the complexities of the disambiguation, it is hard to follow.

I agree it is very hard to follow for people who have not been involved. It is possible to look through my edit activity to help get an idea of how the disputes migrated. The disputes started on the 9th of January when I signed up top defend an editor whose work I admire who had been accused of being a puppet by Nepolkanov. The result was that I became the new focus of Nepolkanov's attention almost immediately after that. YuHuw (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It does not help that the only thing Toddy1 ever does is joke and call me a sockpuppet rather than try to engage in discussion of the subjects on any kind of intellectual level. YuHuw (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Since the entire dispute relates to sub-topics of the Karaites page. My suggestion is that a dispute resolution discussion commence there (Talk:Karaite) and we agree to hold off on edits to the related talk pages until the dispute is resolved. YuHuw (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2016 (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.