Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 56

Opening comments by Brocach

In these two articles on Unionist politics in Northern Ireland, User:Valenciano chose to delete fair, relevant, accurate and sourced material related to sex scandals. In the Traditional Unionist Voice article, the material related to one of the very, very few TUV elected representatives, the second most prominent man in the party, being convicted of child sex abuse. In the David Simpson article, the issue was that an employee of that Member of Parliament was under police investigation and had been dismissed after a camera was found hidden in the toilet of the MP's constituency office. Both these incidents attracted a great deal of media attention and are clearly proper matters to include in the respective articles. Nothing in either piece could possibly be construed as suggesting "guilt by association", and Valenciano is wasting your time by seeking support for his peculiar campaign to sanitise both pages. Brocach (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Traditional Unionist Voice, David Simpson (British politician) 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.

Opening comments by RachelleLin

Talk:Alexander Mirtchev 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.

Opening comments by SudoGhost

There are "large numbers of people", yes. They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums. The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find. I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE. I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion", but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer. The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Response by Pratyeka

• There are "large numbers of people", yes.

I am glad that we agree on this.

• They are Bitcoin enthusiasts that arrived as the result of off-wiki canvassing on multiple Bitcoin forums.

Whilst this is probably a legitimate concern, if you could provide some assessment of account lifetimes and/or edit histories to back this up it would be a more meaningful statement. However, before investing time in such an endeavour, I think we should agree that even if this is true, it does not detract from the problem of the content being lopsided and basically opine, with far better sources available.

• "The information in the article is well-sourced, whitewashing the article will not improve the article. It is also not "poorly sourced" by any means, unless it is being suggested that Reuters, the most reliable news-style source I can think of, somehow is suddenly considered unreliable by some consensus I have been unable to find."

The significant discussions have been centered on a specific section, not the whole page. Furthermore, in levelling the 'Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme' accusation, which is essentially all that the current content consists of, one should normally be aware of what properties such a scheme has, and how these are present within the Bitcoin system (which is discussed deeply throughout the rest of the article). Simply quoting some news does not make a statement correct. Quoting a formal analysis from an expert body makes a statement far more weighty. As I said, I am not at all against including this information, however it needs to be properly balanced with either more formal considerations of Bitcoin's potential categorization as such a scheme (I believe the European Central Bank made such an analysis, concluding the opposite, a link to which was provided by other contributors - such sources should not be overlooked in favour of defamatory news snippets). Finally, recall that what brought me to the discussion in the first place was the fact that the dubious accusation was sourced only to a dead link - as someone with professional knowledge of the topic, I made what I considered an uncontroversial edit in removing the suggestion entirely. The re-citation of various claims to this effect is new, and is the only change that has been instantiated to the section since discussions began, as far as I am aware. This is clearly also one-sided.

• I do not believe that Bitcoin enthusiasts not being being able to find any reliable sources supporting what they want the article to say warrants removing the section altogether; that violates WP:DUE.

This is not the case, far more reliable and well reasoned sources than news snippets have been provided.

• I am not opposed to finding reliable sources that expand or "give the other opinion",

Thank you, this is good. Somehow my own and perhaps others' impression from your actions thus far has been something closer to the opposite. Perhaps we can move forward by removing the disputed statement and constructing an alternative together? The current situation of denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources to the current lopsided opine is not exactly fair and even handed.

• ...but removing well-sourced content from Bitcoin just because Bitcoin enthusiasts canvassed from Bitcoin forums don't want the article to mention anything they perceive as negative is not the answer.

This statement is incorrect on a number of levels, integrating multiple invalid assumptions. And again, we are only discussing a specific section, not the article as a whole.

• The content should be improved, not deleted, because all its saying is that Bitcoin has been accused of something; it places no judgement on whether it is true or not.

Correct. However, denying alternate edits, which is the current situation, is in effect placing judgement. You will see that the section was only removed after the failure to come to a consensus on how to reinvigorate it. Although you have claimed that I am biased, I do not feel any bias, but I do think the section is worthless as it stands and needs to be rewritten with fair community involvement. It seems clear that, whether intentional or not, you seem to have sidelined that process by being petty and unconstructive. I would be happy to write a new version myself, but you have claimed that I am 'involved' and biased and therefore I should not. Meanwhile everyone else has given up in frustration. Because I can see a problem and don't want it to stay there, we now have a dispute.

• Given the massive canvassing going on (not to mention the sockpuppetry/vandalism that caused not only the article, but even the article's talk page to be protected), I don't believe that removing the protection is beneficial to the article; if these canvassed editors cannot even discuss the subject without attacking others, I don't think opening up the article to that kind of behavior is going to improve the situation.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

prat (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue that discussion, but if you're going to respond, I will do so as well. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is the entire point, that's what I've been saying. Yes, it was a WP:DEADLINK but per that very same thing, it doesn't matter if the link was "dead", it's still a valid source, and anyone reading the discussion would see that the link was already archived and provided in the discussion, and that other sources were also given. "We're discussing a specific section" is a horrible red herring; I never once suggested that I was ever, at any point, not talking about this one specific section. I think claiming that I am "denying edits I dislike" is an inappropriate and inaccurate comment. True, there are a few things I disliked about the discussion: I dislike people asserting that my mother is a whore, yes. I dislike people being canvassed in order to try to force a "consensus" to remove content that might reflect poorly on Bitcoin. These things I dislike. Discussing what the article needs to say, I do not dislike.

You also say that "everyone else has given up in frustration", but I don't think that's quite accurate. You may not have noticed, but the discussion has two parts. In the first part, most of the editors that discussed the content were concerned the with specific wording, since they were concerned that the wording in the article suggested that Bitcoin was a ponzi, as an absolute truth. That wording was changed as a result of the first part of that discussion, and no longer makes it seem this way. The discussions on the off-wiki forums suggested that this was what most people had the issue with. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the editors stopped editing after the edit was made. I also did not claim you were biased, I claimed you were WP:INVOLVED, those are not the same. Claims of "denying edits you dislike whilst adding bad sources" is all kinds of incorrect. One, I didn't propose or provide those sources, another editor did. Two, if I "denied" an edit, it was because of a policy or guideline based reason (such as trying to use a person's blog being used as a reliable source), not because I "dislike" the edit. Three, Reuters is not a "bad source".

I've asked multiple times for reliable sources that can expand the article in a way that makes the sentence "neutral". Someone's blog (that they wrote just before it was posted on the talk page), and an open wiki are not reliable sources, so yes, I "dislike" these edits. I've been waiting for someone, anyone to propose a reliable source and wording that can be included in the article, but instead we've been hung up on trying to remove the statement altogether. Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme. This is reflected by reliable sources. It's a fact, and it belongs in the article. If we're going to sit here and go back and forth arguing that it somehow isn't true, that somehow Reuters and others are lying, then we're not discussing moving forward. I haven't found any sources to support your position, I've looked. Considering how much you're asserting that these sources must exist, maybe you should look for them? If they don't exist, then it isn't an "unbalanced" statement; WP:NPOV is not a 50/50 situation, especially if there are no reliable sources to back a statement. See Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" and Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Since I cannot find them, and you're seem to be suggesting they're out there somewhere, I've been doing nothing more than responding to what others have said; if you want to discuss how to expand the section and move on, I'm more than willing to discuss that, but if you want to instead continue to repeat these same discussions over and over, don't blame me when that's all that is discussed. - SudoKamma (SudoGhost's Away Account) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin as an investment discussion

As an admin who has protected Bitcoin in the past, I was invited to comment here. I'll wait until the discussion is formally opened. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. I have restored the discussion above. I invite EdJohnston to make his statement, and Pratyeka to show what he/she wants the section to be like, so we could discuss that instead of making a resolution in the dark. Also, DRN is not to review any administrative action such as protections. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice that User:SudoGhost is very familiar with the socking problems on this article. If he was to suggest unprotection, I'd certainly take that seriously. It seems he is still supporting continued protection while holding out for some better sourcing. While we are waiting for unprotection to become reasonable, can't an RfC or other discussion be started on the talk page, to try to settle the outstanding issues? Also, can someone familiar with the article say whether the 'editprotect' system has been able to produce some genuine improvements? If we are to judge by the above statement of User:Pratyeka there is a big furor about whether to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. If this Ponzi claim is truly driving the off-Wikipedia pressure on this article then perhaps an RfC that is solely addressed to getting compromise wording on the Ponzi issue could be worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You may certainly start an RfC, and this noticeboard can be used for discussion that has failed before. We're trying to settle the problems here for now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why User:Pratyeka opened this request, since the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin does not appear to be stalemated. There is an active thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. There are many participants in that thread. The main problem is that the thread is very long and somewhat rambling and judging consensus might be difficult. If it would help to get better focus on a single proposed draft I'm sure someone could open a WP:RFC on the article talk page. I left a suggestion to this effect at User talk:Pratyeka#What's the DRN about? and I hope he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am happy take the time to try to summarize (again). Look for a new subsection on the talk page shortly. prat (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll close this thread as this discussion will continue on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No please don't. The discussion is stalemated and has been for a long time. SudoGhost is simply not possible to work with and it does not appear possible to edit the page without him. If you read the discussion (please do even though it's long), it will become apparent that SudoGhost refuses to accept the definition of ponzi scheme used by Wikipedia itself, refuses to accept sources that provide logical arguments for why it's not a ponzi scheme on the grounds that they were written because of these sorts of disputes and refuses any proposed modifications - citing ever more obscure rules to do so. What's more nobody else on the Talk page agrees with him on this (because the wrongness of the statement on the page is a matter of logic, it shouldn't even need sources). Let me repeat this - nobody supports SudoGhosts position. The Talk page is long not because there's genuine debate here but because SudoGhost replies to absolutely every single point made by lots of different people. Without some kind of appeals or dispute resolution process that replaces the section the page will remain locked Mike Hearn (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to Pratyeka for making a new summary at Talk:Bitcoin#Summary of my own view of the discussion status (by request). Meanwhile, I have checked through the thread at Talk:Bitcoin#Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation. It seems that many participants in that thread could have been recruited to the discussion from offsite. SudoGhost has provided some links to mailing lists where changing the Wikipedia article has been discussed. My test for who is a 'regular editor' is someone who has made more than 20 edits in 2012. In the thread, besides SudoGhost I only noticed User:Nagle, User:Jtibble and User:Pratyeka to be long-term Wikipedia editors who were obviously not recruited. In spite of the apparent selective nature of the participation in that thread, it does not appear to be an insuperable task to create a neutral version of the Ponzi section. I would recommend that Pratyeka (who is an admin) not close any edit requests himself, given that he holds a position on the issue for which he is advocating here. I notice he has already self-reverted some changes he made to Bitcoin while the article was under full protection. As regards the continued protection, until the Ponzi section is settled down I think lifting it is unwise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have underscored the fact that I really do not care what the public perception of Bitcoin is and for this reason do not consider myself biased or 'involved' in this case. I have fully supported SudoGhost's attempt to maintain references to the accusations within the article from the word go, as can be seen in my comments on the talk page. I was only brought to the discussion after SudoGhost asked me to revert what I considered and still consider an uncontroversial edit to remove an illogical claim sourced with a single dead-link. This has turned in to a huge waste of time discussing the matter, which was already complained about in depth, and with no forward motion, as Mike has pointed out. The protected status combined with SudoGhost apparently being upset about some of the previous personal attacks he has received while contributing to the protected page discussions has resulted in a situation in which facilitating positive change does not appear to be the outcome of his participation, rather, we have a stalemate. I am still very much for unprotecting the page. Protection should be a last resort, right now I see little purpose in protection as rollbacks are easy and individual changes are best discussed on the talk page when and where controversial as per WP:Be bold. prat (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Added NPOV section template while discussions continue. prat (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(This will be my first DRN, so bear with me if I mess up, I'm only human) - Well, since this is stale I'll reopen it. I see that this is very hostile and I've seen this dispute show up in many places recently. I looked over the one sentence section that this dispute is all about, and it seems well sourced. If defensive statements from Bitcoin users were added it would seem a bit more suitable and less POV, though. Have any sources for defensive statements been suggested in the past? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. In addition, right now there are three concrete proposals for replacement text on the talk page. prat (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I am (of course) unsure how you are counting 'concrete proposals', however, I want to point out that I believe SudoGhost has some level of acceptance for the (my) proposal in the section What does the section need to cover as it was based off of his 'draft proposal'. Additionally, none of the 'SudoGhost opposition' has complained about this proposal in any way, let alone claiming it is unbalanced. --Smickles86 (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@prat: Great, could I have a link? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean a link to the proposals? They are highlighted in bold under the section titled Proposed resolutions. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been watching this discussion for a while and would like to ask a few questions.

1. The dispute is focused around the 1 sentence assertion about the Ponzi scheme?
2. What would the least level of compromise you could accept be to close out this dispute?
3. What changes are needed to improve the article as opposed to wanted?

I'll keep my personal thoughts shrouded but would love to hear what the disputants think. Hasteur (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the one sentence assertion (also relatively weightily highlighted with a section heading) is the issue. Compromise would be agreeing upon replacement text that is more even-handed and informative, such as the concrete proposals mentioned at Proposed resolutions. What changes are needed: actual information on Bitcoin as an investment, in the section titled 'criticisms (or concerns?): bitcoin as an investment', instead of a spurious, illogical accusation that's largely sourced to some table-thumping politician who managed to get press coverage. The great content we have there include the results of an analysis by the ECB, a statement from the head developer. We have not been able to make much headway thus far on taking down the ponzi schema accusation in a point by point basis precisely because the definition is so vague and no specific person of any repute has bothered to take it on. Instead, there's a Bitcoin community statement on the matter on a Wiki, but SudoGhost feels this is not cite-worthy, which others including myself would challenge (depends upon what the statement is, eg. '...whilst members of the bitcoin community have rejected ....' could be cited with that wiki, IMHO). Basically we've got loads of content, but we don't have the time, space, expertise or specific quotable quotes to disassemble the accusations logically, and nor should we, since that would be original research. I think we just need to roll together what we have in a readable way as true statements and leave the reader to make up their own mind. If anyone new would like to attempt to write some proposal text here, that would be great, as despite - or because of - a lengthy discussion, we are now short of people who are still willing to contribute. Sigh. prat (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what might have helped instead of making the same arguments over and over that go against both the letter and spirit of many policies and guidelines, and contributing more talk page content towards complaining rather than discussing? Exactly what I've been trying to do the entire time, which is to improve the section, but having to explain for the 80th time why an open wiki isn't the best source or why you cannot use personal logic to "refute away" what multiple reliable sources have said tends to slow down any sort of useful discussion. I can imagine it is very frustrating when dozens of canvassed people from Bitcoin forums realize that Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not argumentum ad populum, and that sourced content cannot be removed or downplayed just because a few overenthusiastic Bitcoin users don't want anything negative to be in the article, but if pointing that out means the article's creator thinks I'm the "bad guy" just "denying edits I dislike" then so be it, even if it means I'll be treated to off-wiki attacks and personal emails threatening my life. - SudoGhost 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, this is complicated. I can't find any "concrete proposals" that have been suggested, just a bunch of sentence's being bounced around a drawing board. May I have any information possible as to what current proposals are out there? Thanks in advance, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 00:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Lihaas

There is absolutely no dispute here whatsoever as i have zero qualms about changing the content as mentioned pon the talk page. The only thing i asked was discussion first for consensus. As you see there has been no discussion but 1 view and immediately change it. Thats no discussion. Both sides have to give views and then rationally discuss it. If im against the majority then by all means go ahead and remove. Im just in my right per BRD, etc to call for discussion first instead of warring and removing it individually, no? Because 1 view wasnt accepted (see the proposers comment and when he removed i, note the time gap which doesnt constitute a discussion) = dispute resolution? This is frivolous cause i have no qualms if consensus through discussion is against me. DR means attempts have to be made. I try time and again to use the talk page to discuss first, and tme and again the preference is to chane the talk page to WP:WRONGVERSION instead of discussion. Note the template: "What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled."

Further all instances of sic on the page were not to the aforementioned "american" and the discussion only pertains to those "Sics"

UPDATE see the talk page. And note when discussion takes plae rationally the attempt to solve is done. Not per OP's accusation that the world doesnt see things his way!Lihaas (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Fishal

I weighed in on the Talk page to respond to the generous use of the editorial tag [sic] in quotations by various world leaders. They appeared after every single use of the word "American," and in a few other places where the writer disagreed with the way a quote used a term. The [sic] should be used to help the reader understand a potentially confusing quotation; in this article, the purpose seems to be to criticize the speaker, since there was no risk of confusion or ambiguity. Fishal (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2012 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.

Opening comments by AussieLegend

The discussion at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies only started a little over 26 hours ago. Swiftcasting made a post there at 02:08 UTC, which he subsequently amended until 02:41. Eighteen minutes later I responded, explaining that I was busy and would attempt to respond more fully in the next few hours. Without giving me the courtesy of waiting for that response (he waited only 39 minutes), he posted a response, and then apparently came directly here. There's quite a bit at Talk:Steven D. Binder#Relevancies that I still haven't time to respond to, and I'm hoping (perhaps too optimistically) to resolve the issues there first. Swiftcasting acknowledges he is a newbie, and obviously does not yet understand Wikipedia policies. Hopefully this will change and DRN will not be needed, so I don't intend participating at this time; I have an 1,800 word post to respond to. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Steven D._Binder 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.

Objections to material

"Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page discussion

Hi, I'm Ebe123, an volunteer at DRN. Please trim the opening statement to 2000 characters. I am not opening discussion right now. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ebel23. Please see talk page section "Breast Cancer Awareness" article and talk page. Charles35 (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles35, reduce your opening statement to less than 2000 characters. If you continue to persist in adding content, there is the possibility that this filing will be closed. The discussion is still not opened. Do not post in this section until one of the volunteers invites discussion. Hasteur (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the DR/N notice board. Charles35 was asked by this volunteer to give more detail on the dispute from the simple statement originally posted. As the filing editor was concerned about the character limit, I have given the editor permission to go past the limit. Do not close this case just for their going over the limit as they were asked to do so if it was needed. Please see the DR/N talkpage. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the case originator was given permission to exceed the limit, of course we should let it slide. On the other hand, I'm still trying to grasp what the precise issue is. It would be nice if one of the parties, in their opening statement, could give a simple, plain summary of the issue(s) that is understandable to outsiders. --Noleander (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand it from the short version and am still not entirely clear on the issue now. Perhaps another opening will clarify or Charles may read over his opening and see areas to improve on. Right now I can only assume this is an editor that has not had their contributions stand after discussion on the talkpage of the article. If the consensus of editors there is appropriate and within policy, this may just not be the correct venue but may indeed be a case for RFC.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed it. I hope that is more clear. Charles35 (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets go ahead and begin the discussion. Charles, if you could, I wonder if a brief description of what you feel is needed to the article would be a good beginning. Is there any sort of compromise to the content you feel would be acceptable by the involved parties?

Okay. The inner circle problem can be broken down into 2 pieces - the quote, and the text. The quote is a paragraph long and is making a bizarre metaphor relating cancer victims to barbaric circumcision and blood rituals. It's degrading, inappropriate, and violates WP:UNDUE/WP:NPOV. I think that this should be removed, no question.

While I do oppose all talk of a conspiracy-like inner circle of awareness supporters, in the spirit of compromise/consensus, I think this might be appropriate:

1) the quote must be removed.

2) the text must identify the idea as a metaphor, and attribute it by stating the person's name in addition to the inline citation (to put extra emphasis because the article uses inline citations, so it appears no different from any other sentence without attributing it in the text). This is very important - the idea CANNOT be displayed as a fact.

3) the text cannot use the term "inner circle". It sounds conspiratorial. The source does not use it. I think that "rite of passage" is okay. The source uses it. And it fits with the metaphor.

I think that with those 3 conditions, the text will not lend undue weight to a bizarre metaphor, it will not be misleading in stating the idea as a fact, and it will not sound conspiratorial. Charles35 (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU made a revision that identified the idea as a metaphor in the text. I don't see that as making any difference because the quote identifies it as a metaphor anyway. Then I edited it more, removing the quote, keeping WLU's identification of the metaphor, and removing inner circle. To me, that makes the material acceptable. WLU reverted my edit, but didn't give any reason in the edit summary. WLU - can you let me know the reason now? What exactly did you not like about my edit / those 3 conditions? Charles35 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless and until the other participants decide to weigh in, this may likely go stale. For the most part this was a one against many situation and was opened by another volunteer who weighed in by posting. This happens often and can make participants feel as if the case was ready for DR/N, when it may well be that no one is interested enough to make this a real dispute. I will leave a message on the article talkpage to ping involved parties but if no one posts there is little we can work with. If any other volunteer has more to add, please feel free.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was appropriate to include the quotation, which said:

"Understood as a rite of passage, breast cancer resembles the initiation rites so exhaustively studied by Mircea Eliade: First there is the selection of the initiates -- by age in the tribal situation, by mammogram or palpation here. Then come the requisite ordeals -- scarification or circumcision within traditional cultures, surgery and chemotherapy for the cancer patient. Finally, the initiate emerges into a new and higher status -- an adult and a warrior -- or in the case of breast cancer, a "survivor.""

As for inner circle, Charles is invited to explain how he would describe the "new and higher status" that women are initiated into. I thought that "women are initiated into the inner circle of the culture" was a reasonable and standard description of the idea (by "standard", I mean that the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books, so it's a pretty common phrase that ought to be recognized by any fluent English speaker).

Charles—and Charles alone, as far as I can tell—thinks that saying they're initiated into an inner circle sounds like some sort of evil conspiracy. But he's not been forthcoming with alternatives. If he's got sensible alternatives to offer, I'd like to hear them.

("Inner circle" appears in other sources cited in the article.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not see "inner circle" as conspiratorial, I see it as an evocative description of entry into the most respected and revered area of a culture. Yes, conspiracy theories and secret societies can be described as having an "inner circle", but so can nearly any organization where trust, history and respect impact the social capital held by members. Ehrenreich's quote initially wasn't there, and Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources. I added the quote, which verified the information, and have been replacing it because I think it again is evocative - I don't think I could come up with a summary that is anywhere near the quality of the original material. In addition, the use of the quote firmly places the term "inner circle" in the context of initiation rites - not conspiracies. I think it's good writing, quoted in an appropriate place, that illustrates a valuable point about the culture of BCA. I have read Charles' objections, and find them all less compelling than the quote itself. This is an issue that could be addressed by a request for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't really see the paragraph as being neutral in tone and actually do not understand the use of the term she-roes. This is highly unusual for a fact based statement. In fact, the entire first sentence seems very POV: "Breast cancer culture values and honors suffering, selecting its she-roes by a "misery quotient". --Amadscientist (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: "not understand the use of the term" - did you see the sub-section just above, Breast cancer awareness#The she-ro? (Note prior discussions in the talkpage archives, here and here). See also ghits and g-scholar-hits for the exact phrase "misery quotient" and also ghits for "she-ro" cancer (eg this article from 1994). Both terms are used extensively outside of the currently cited sources. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the section shown is of undue weght and would also prefer to see inline citations used and not a single overarching opinion for the section but regardless this term should not be used in this manner as a fact based claim. There is a way to write an encyclopedia and this isn't it in my opinion.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I also think the sections being mentioned suffer from POV. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to suggest that these terms are standard, which is what I believe is going on here. It seems to me that some information is the opinion of various authors and are not actual statements of fact. A lot of this should be attributed to the author in the form of their own opinion and not as un questionable fact.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Terms like "she-ro", "misery quotient" and "inner circle" are metaphors or constructs used by one or a small group of authors. They need to be treated as opinion and not as fact. GabrielF (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how two sentences, representing 0.005% of the article, about the fact that society honors cancer patients because of their suffering, is really "undue". It's less than 1/200th of the article. How much smaller do you think it should be? How much smaller do you think it could be?

Also, since DUE weight is determined by the prevalence of ideas and concepts in the reliable sources, not the prevalence of ideas among editors, and you've read few (none?) of the sources that discuss the specific question of what society values or honors in cancer patients, can you explain the epistemiology ("how you know what you [think you] know") behind your assertion of undue weight? It seems to me that until you've read multiple sources on that talk about this specific subject, that you don't actually have enough information to form a rational or relevant opinion on whether these two sentences represent a balanced summary of the published, reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What two sentences are you refering to? I am referring to the She-Ro section itself, which actually seems to have about 4 references, however I still see it as undue weight as the article is about Breast cancer awareness and I feel this section is needlessly over-written. Also, you are wikilawyering now and making far too many assumptions on me alone. I am not the subject or your prejudices about me or what I may or may not have read. But I think you are mistaken about what I am talking about. Also, I am curious about the parenthetical citation style being used. Does this have a consensus?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I refer to the two sentences that say that the culture selects its she-roes on the basis of suffering. They immediately precede the quoted lines about the "misery quotient", which Charles disputes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: WP:Parenthetical referencing - yes, it's an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it. Complaints about the usage of this style, was the original/only reason I took an interest in the article! –Quiddity (talk) 08:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the published reliable sources, the she-ro is a part of breast cancer awareness. Therefore it's not undue to have a paragraph or two about the she-ro. Sulik's book goes on at great length about this idealized patient, including the cultural sources, the factual description, and the effects that the archetype has on women. Like I said: for this subject, you need to go read the sources instead of relying on your own prior knowledge. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Those are long paragraphs.
2. The shero permeates to almost every section of the article.
3. Shero is also a prime feature of "Consequences" and "Breast cancer culture", which combine for 10 more paragraphs, totaling 12 focused on the shero. Charles35 (talk) 03:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the following paragraph is particularly demonstrative of the neutrality problems with this article:

Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause. These supporters may feel socially compelled to participate, in a type of "obligatory voluntarism" that critics say is "exploitative" (Sulik 2010, page 250, 308)

Here are some issues:

1. "critics say is 'exploitative'" - Sulik says that "the culture's use of women's voluntarism for the cause can be exploitive" (308). She is not saying, as the Wikipedia article does, that it is exploitive, but that it can be. Sulik offers an example of a woman, Melinda, who received many calls to speak about her condition and who felt socially obligated to volunteer even though her health would have benefited from a reduced schedule. Just because a critic points out one case that she feels constitutes exploitation does not mean that this critic sees breast cancer culture as inherently exploitative as opposed to having the potential to be exploitative in certain cases. In fact, as Sulik explains, Melinda may not be a typical case. Sulik points out that the African American community has a history of avoiding conversations about cancer. As an African American woman who was willing to be a spokesperson, Melinda may have been a rare and valuable asset who was called upon more than a typical breast cancer survivor and who might have felt a special obligation that other survivors may not have felt. To conclude from this one case that breast cancer culture IS exploitive, rather than that it CAN BE exploitive in certain cases is to misrepresent the source.
2. "critics say is 'exploitative' - Do critics say this or does the one cited critic say this? Why are we not attributing this directly to Sulik?
3. "Mere symbolism itself does not prevent cancer, improve treatments, or save lives. However, it is an effective form of promoting the pink ribbon culture: fear of breast cancer, the hope for a scientific breakthrough, and the goodness of the people who support the cause." - What this seems to be suggesting is that the purely symbolic events described in the preceding few paragraphs (painting a bridge pink or a facebook campaign that asks women to post the color of their bras) doesn't have any value except as a means of self-promotion for this movement. Where is the source for this? It seems to contradict things that we say elsewhere in the article, for instance: "The high level of awareness and organized political lobbying has resulted in a disproportionate level of funding and resources given to breast cancer research and care." This suggests to me that attention-grabbing events may keep help maintain a high level of awareness of breast cancer that leads to tangible benefits for breast cancer patients in the form of additional dollars for treatment.GabrielF (talk) 11:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree. One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik, who's work is very recent and does not appear to be the mainstream. A lot of what is being used is being referenced as fact and I think that has lead us here. I am going to read through the entire article and all the refernces closely to see what's what, but just a quick look makes me uncomfortable how much Sulik is being referenced and not in the best manner possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If Sulik's work is "not...mainstream", then how did her book get more than two dozen positive reviews, including in peer-reviewed journal articles? What exactly constitutes "mainstream" if positive reviews in the mainstream and academic presses don't count? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find page 310 on Amazon, it is hidden on Google Books. It seems like Sulik's point about exploitation is that the breast cancer awareness organizations can ask a lot of women and these women then have to take responsibility for negotiating exactly what it is they are willing to do, given their own feelings of obligation to the organization and their desire to take care of their own needs. I'll quote exactly what Sulik says below, but my reaction is that it seems like what Sulik is describing is a very typical human relationship: Sometimes you feel an obligation to help out with something but you have your own needs and you need to strike a balance. This seems very common with non-profits but also with friendships and with family relationships. My relatives call me to help them with their computer problems. I have to balance my sense of obligation towards them with my irritation about having to deal with other people's wireless routers. This may be worth a couple of pages in a 300-page book on the breast cancer awareness movement but does it really belong in an encyclopedia article? I'd like to delete the entire paragraph.GabrielF (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel, what paragraph are you talking about? Charles35 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph at the end of the Events section that originally began "Mere symbolism..." but has now been modified to begin "Symbolism itself..." GabrielF (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Charles disputed the text on the basis that the "rite of passage" and other prose was not verified by the sources.

WLU, please do not jump to random conclusions. I said that "inner circle" was not in the text, which is true. I said nothing about "rite of passage". Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong. But half the things you say about me are false. So please, everyone, take his words about me with a grain of salt, because I don't have time to dispute all of them. Charles35 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, when I googled "initiated into the inner circle", most of the hits were talking about Freemason conspiracies. Charles35 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the fact that this is, as you say, "1/200th" of the article is irrelevant. This is the exact reason why I, at the beginning of this, quoted a bunch of other passages from the article to give the context for this quote. Every sentence is 1/200th, or however small, of the article. Does that mean that we can't consider any single sentence undue weight? How does this thinking apply to the pro-Komen sentence that GabrielF added? . Each sentence must be taken within the context of the larger article. Charles35 (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the pro-Komen statement is currently in the page despite that diff being from December 1st, presumably WAID thinks it is OK.

The Ehrenreich quote makes it very obvious that "inner circle" does not refer to Freemasons or other conspiracies, as does the use of "ordeal" and "rite of passage" in the page. It is quite probable that readers will use the context of the page, rather than googling the term, to decide what sense is being used. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Probability is not a standard I recognise as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. While I agree in some small degree, I also see something of a POV there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

WLU, I was responding to WhatamIdoing's statement that "the exact quoted phrase "initiated into the inner circle" gets more than 100K ghits and appears in several hundred books". Thus, my observation was that most of these hits and books seem to be referring to the Freemason conspiracy. Charles35 (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

On Gabriel's questions above:

1. Sulik says that the culture's use of the women "can be exploitive" and we say that patients "may feel socially compelled to participate" in something that critics say is exploitative. I think that the overall sentiment is accurate. If we weaken the "is exploitive", then we'll have to strengthen the "may feel" to "feel" (because Sulik never says that women "only might" feel this way).
2. Every source I've seen that addresses it says this. This sort of dispute is exactly why Amadscientist thinks that the article suffers from "overuse of sources". If we don't provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we haven't sufficiently proven the statement; if we provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we're providing too many.
3. We have made an effort not to duplicate citations per WP:Citation overkill, but I see that isn't working for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

1) fine, do that. It's more reflective of the source that way.

2 & 3) this is why you should use footnotes.

A string of multiple citations is still a string of multiple citations, no matter how they're formatted. Amadscientist is already complaining about the total number of citations. Changing the formatting doesn't change the number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

When it's 2 #s and not 50 characters, it is much easier to read. And it makes things much less confusing (ie it is more clear which material is cited and which isn't). Charles35 (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Focus on Content & Volunteers

NOTE: Does anyone know if we could / how to collapse some or all of the above text to make the page easier to navigate?

Okay, so to me it seems like, while we might not line up on each and every point, WLU and WhatamIdoing (and Quiddity, I think) tend to believe the article is fine and there is no WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV problem, while Amadscientist, GabrielF, and I tend to believe that the article does have these problems. So, since it looks like WLU's, WhatamIdoing's, Quiddity's, and my opinions never seem to waver (Gabriel seems to be the exception), there's little point for more banter. I think we should do what we came here to do. There's a reason we left the talk page to come here, which is to get, and listen to, the opinions of the uninvolved DRN volunteers. Otherwise, we may as well still be back at the talk page. So, Amadscientist has expressed his thoughts:

I have to say, I don't really see the paragraph as being neutral in tone...This is highly unusual for a fact based statement. In fact, the entire first sentence seems very POV...

I think the section shown is of undue weght and would also prefer to see inline citations used and not a single overarching opinion for the section but regardless this term should not be used in this manner as a fact based claim. There is a way to write an encyclopedia and this isn't it in my opinion.

I also think the sections being mentioned suffer from POV. The idea of a Wikipedia article is not to suggest that these terms are standard, which is what I believe is going on here.

One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik...A lot of what is being used is being referenced as fact and I think that has lead us here.

I also see something of a POV there.

So, as a little refresher, the main issue is "inner circle", which has 2 parts - the quote, and the text. IMO (the original point of this dispute), the quote violates WP:WEIGHT, and the text violates WP:NPOV. I don't see many other options besides some sort of formal "binding" type of debate or a "ruling". What do you guys think? Do you usually do that at DRN?

However, other parts of the article have been noticeably discussed, mainly by GabrielF and Amadscientist. This is generally the shero section (presenting things as facts) and other things like the citation method. Do you guys see any resolution with these issues in mind?

Again, I think we should hear what Amadscientist has to say. He was uninvolved and is therefore less biased than any one of us.

Anyway, here are some recent points:

1. - Inner circle

The fact is, at least some of the readers are indeed gullible idiots. But none of us are at liberty to or even have the ability to judge the intelligence of readers. That shouldn't be up to us. Thus, in my opinion, we should cater to the lowest hypothetical intelligence. Of course, this is within reason; I believe that "within reason" would include people who take this interpretation: you don't need to be too stupid to think this is referring to a group of people who are all on a first name basis (which isn't true), implied by "inner circle", and go through initiation procedures (which isn't true) in order to be in such a group, implied by "initiated into". That is how the article reads. You can't expect people to read between the lines. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that relatively average / slightly above average readers would take this interpretation.

A lot of this should be attributed to the author in the form of their own opinion and not as un questionable fact. I absolutely agree. Terms like "she-ro", "misery quotient" and "inner circle" are metaphors or constructs used by one or a small group of authors. They need to be treated as opinion and not as fact.

So my line of reasoning says we should, if we decide to keep inner circle (which is still up to debate), phrase it as an opinion/construct and not fact? To me, that seems pretty settled. Therefore, IMO, an important issue we should discuss is whether the paragraph-long quote is due weight.

1. - citation style

One of the reasons that I ask about the referencing is the overuse of sources tending to make me believe there is a heavy amount of POV and undue weight to the source and author. I can't help but think that the referencing issue is sort of pushed to possibly not be so obvious how much of this article has been given the view of the authors, including Gayle A. Sulik...a quick look makes me uncomfortable how much Sulik is being referenced and not in the best manner possible.

Quiddity said: yes, [parenthetical citation] is an uncommon but completely accepted style (See WP:CITEVAR). At least 2 FAs use it.

WhatamIdoing said: Every source I've seen that addresses it says this. This sort of dispute is exactly why Amadscientist thinks that the article suffers from "overuse of sources". If we don't provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we haven't sufficiently proven the statement; if we provide multiple citations, then someone complains that we're providing too many.

I said: this is why you should use footnotes. When it's 2 little numbers and not 50 characters, it is much easier to read. And it makes things much less confusing (ie it is more clear which material is cited and which isn't). Charles35 (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to take a vote to settle this citation style thing once and for all? It looks like something we can come to a reasonable clear cut yes/no agreement over. Charles35 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Cambalachero

Some points: Lecen requested article ownership here. He voiced his personal political preferences here. He borders into wikihounding here, discussing with a reviewer that approved GA that I nominated (not relation with any of this, and beyond his area of interests). The article of Rosas does mention that some people see him as a dictator; it simply does not do so in wikipedia's voice (as in "Rosas was a dictator"), because that is not an universally held opinion. I left full details of Lecen's recent behavior at User:Cambalachero/Lecen Cambalachero (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas discussion

User:Cambalachero, previously known as MBelgrano, has previously edited to play down the role of caudillo in Argentina's history. A literal translation of Caudillo is dictator or more politely strong leader. I have experience of the latter at Manuel Belgrano.

I do not consider this is necessarily a deliberate desire to misrepresent history. Sadly there is a revisionist trend in recorded history in Argentina that has a tendency to present a somewhat sanitised view of the past; and to creatively interpret events to reflect modern political realities. Rather than sanitising the article he simply reflects what is taught in Argentina.

My suggestion is that given the role of several leaders in Argentine history is open to a range of opinions you should be guided by how they are viewed in a range of neutral 3rd party academic sources. The article should present a range of opinion, attributed to individual historians to reflect the range of views.

Both of you present equally valid views, what I suggest you haven't realised is the need to present both. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

But here at Wikipedia we do not write "Some historians claim that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, while others affirm that few were killed." Revisionism is not regarded in here as "the other side" or "the second opinion". Even less when we are talking about revisionists that share a positive view of authoritarian regimes that executed innocent people. Cambalachero is free to talk about Argentine Revisionism perhaps in an article called "Revisionism in Argentina" or even in "Legacy of Juan Manuel de Rosas". He can't, however, alter historical facts due to his preference for Revisionist sources. --Lecen (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a little too soon to play the nazi card? There's no serious point of comparison of Rosas and Hitler, neither as historical leaders nor in their public perception. To keep it short for the sake of users who don't know who is Rosas, I will simply point to File:20pesos.jpg: the face of Rosas appears in the modern Argentine currency, an honour that Hitler may never dream with (there are more examples, but this one is particularly ilustrative). Which proves that, unlike Hitler, positive views of Rosas are not at all a tiny minority, and are even sponsored by the Argentine state. WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case. If wikipedia editors "like" Rosas or not, or consider if he "deserves" his positive image or not, is a pointless detail to raise. Cambalachero (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Cantaloupe2

I viewed the references cited for O'Dwyer and inserted what was in reference, but omitted in prose. CorporateM didn't advise that it had been extensively discussed in edit comment. If that was the case, then let consensus be. The CSU reference was simply a class website intended for that section which is subject to change as its the instructor's personal workspace for his class. I didn't look into it as deep as CorporateM did on subject but didn't seem like appropriate WP:RS.

Yah, it's tricky finding out what to include and what not to and with how much weight. The articles I've written on Credit Suisse, Playtex and PRSA could each be immense articles if we included everything there is a source for, but it takes a lot of research and labor to really establish what events are truly significant in their history.

If that one is resolved, I think it would still be great to get a second opinion on whether the professor qualifies as an expert (see my links and info on the Talk page). I would be willing to go either way based on a second opinion. Corporate 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

PRSA 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.

Opening comments by Smartmo

It is not true, I'm kept the most up to date research from IDC (this research is not failed, no one can say if is failed, because it is in future, year 2012 still not ended), and I'm NOT removed other researches, I only removed RUMORS (e.g. untruth that "IDC had to dial back their predictions", but is not true, or personal opinion of Jim McGregor, or unclear and unsourced information of Bernstein research, ... all sources and reasons are discussed on talk page) repeatedly inserted by Davidkmartin (talk · contribs). Also I'm not back using an IP address, I using my login, and I'm never modified this page after this incident. Meanwhile, user Davidkmartin (talk · contribs) repeatedly reverted back my contributions and contributions of another users, and repeatedly inserted non-credible rumors to this page (see above), inserted outdated information (old IDC information), and repeatedly DELETED up-to-date and credible information (most up-to-date IDC research form Dec 2012) from page (e.g. at 08:53, 7 Dec, 17:49, 7 Dec, 08:49, 8 Dec and 14:38, 8 Dec), without any discussion on talk page. I'm periodicaly contributed to wikipedia long ago on many pages (unlike Davidkmartin (talk · contribs)), but I'm stopped donating and contributing to Wikipedia, because there not a neutral point of view, I don't want continue with discussion about it.--Smartmo (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mobile operating system discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. It does appear at this point that one of the primary disputants has chosen to leave Wikipedia. Unless there is some indication that they wish to continue this discussion within 24 hours after the time stamp on this post, then any volunteer may close this thread as stale or dispute abandoned. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what is the next steps? May I already revert Smartmo (talk • contribs) changes? - Davidkmartin (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting the 24 hours to see if Smartmo returns to this discussion, though there's nothing stopping you if you wish to go ahead, so long as doing so otherwise comports with Wikipedia policy (and I'm not suggesting that those reversions would or wouldn't comply with policy — I have no opinion about that having not looked). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know what Davidkmartin wants to get back (I don't contribute on Wikipedia after incident), but I have evidence that Davidkmartin put on the wikipedia page lies and also erases truthful information without discussion on talk page.--Smartmo (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Smartmo (talk · contribs) please, stop lying! We already had extensive discussion on the talk page. Wikipedia needs to maintain a neutral point of view, not your point of view. Volunteers, please, read what I posted to see what Smartmo (talk · contribs) is doing (adding his own bias by removing content he does not like and putting failed predictions) -Davidkmartin (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not lying, you're lying here just you, again. You are a big liar rude. Did you not discuss the talk page, you're lying. I was not blocked because access to this page used the IP, you are lie. You are lie also on the predictions for this page when putting lies (e.g. IDC never dialed back their predictions, it is only your lie). Please use talk page, if you want anything insert on this page. --Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Both: Please remember that this forum is only for content disputes. Please only discuss content, not conduct. If you wish to make a complaint about an editor's conduct, please use WP:AN or WP:RFC/U but do not raise it or discuss it here. @Smartmo: I'd encourage you to stick around, but if you are not going to continue to contribute to Wikipedia then this listing should be closed. Please clearly indicate your intentions. Saying that you're no longer going to contribute, but then continuing to post here is confusing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I did not contribute to any Wikipedia page (public) after the incident, but I defends himself against on the talk pages from lies of Davidkmartin. I have a right to defend himself. --Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I already used WP:AN and Smartmo (talk · contribs) was blocked for a while for his conduct, but the block expired and he continues to force his point of view on Mobile operating system -Davidkmartin (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, you're lying, I was not blocked "again" due to editing related page under IP, and I'm not continued contribute after first (3RR) incident (IMHO unjust, but accepted), and not blocked again never.--Smartmo (talk) 10:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by Tomcat7

This request is clearly inappropiate. Chris wants to punish me by doing something like that. I don't want to waste my time stating the same thing all the time. Chris is always welcome to propose more sources (he just added one poor source, which has insufficient information), but filling a request to this board and adding a miserable tag on my talk page is ridiculuous. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder discussion

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. I am of the opinion that this dispute should be declined/closed, primarily because it is more of a conduct dispute than a content dispute (though it certainly has content aspects as well) but also partly because it is a matter which should be worked out at a different venue, namely WP:GAN where there is ongoing discussion in this thread. I'm not closing it myself because I'd like at least one other volunteer here at DRN to also consider the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The dispute centres around the conduct of the user regarding the results of the GAN not the content of the article. Although there was some content related discussion regarding sourcing the main issue is conduct. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm dealing with specific matter regards the content and the proper acknowledgement of the tags, I will take the conduct matter to RFC/U. My purpose is to bring concensus that Tomcat7 must address the problems of the content and the proper tagging of such at the article. Calling the artist an illegitimate child born out of wedlock is a big claim. Its glossed over, but the matter of the younger Friedrich is also noted as 'misstep' according to the article and it is not sourced. I believe the one-source tag should stay as it is valid and has been acknowledged by everyone, including Tomcat7. I am also wanting the citation needed matters to be properly sourced or marked as such. Anything with the Nazi's is a big matter, BLP does not cover the subject, but I would at least strongly recommend that such contentious claims must be sourced. All I am here is for that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tomcat7 might want you to believe I added a source to the page, "Chris is always welcome to propose more sources (he just added one poor source.." It almost sounds like I am responsible for putting sources into an article I was reviewing at GAN. This is Tomcat7's nomination, he should be responsible for addressing fixes or have it fail accordingly. I have little faith in any of Tomcat7's edits as he is writing blind, he does not have the only source and yet continues to be highly disruptive. The original one source tag as added by Paperluigi and was removed without addressing it just two days before my review began. This is pretty much why I am persisting on getting consensus. The content matters are being purposely and deliberately being removed to subvert Wikipedia's policies. For these reasons, I am here with the content side, not the user conduct matter. If this is an open and shut case of the validity of these tags and the acknowledgement of these issues, it will be better for the conduct matter, as RFC/U will not want to deal with the content matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'll point out that when you submit a DRN request the page states (under This process cannot) Force another editor to do something. Forcing another use not to do something is the same as forcing them 'to' do something. Your statement in the How do you think we can help section (Hopefully make Tomcat7 reexamine his behavior and address content matters) falls under this. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, close this please. I'll take it to RFC/U, the content matter related to this is minimal at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Opening comments by

Juan Manuel de Rosas 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.

Opening comments by Alan.Gilfroy

• User:Surajt88 has simply been deleting all the information that I work hard to put in, on the grounds that it does not have citable sources. I have consistently disproved this by gradually accumulating sources. Since the claims in the article are neither exaggerated nor malicious, I advised that they should remain with the tag "citation needed" until I or other contributors can find necessary sources. All this is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia Policy. I have also pointed out that simply because the editor cannot find web sources, does not mean that the claims are not legitimate or uncitable.
• Here are examples of poor grammar from the user's latest revision:

1. "Hebron school was incorporated on the year 1899" - "school" is not capitalized; "on" - incorrect use of prepositions of time
2. "christian workers in India" - "Christian" is not capitalized
3. Also noteworthy is the user's revision of the "Administration" section. The user has turned a neat, orderly set of bullet points into a stream of disorganized sentences, which any user would find hard to read.
4. Similarly, the user compresses other bulleted information into bigger paragraphs, which makes it universally more difficult for viewers to read.

• I do not edit the article according to my "preferred version." I simply want the article to be comprehensive, factual and meet high grammatical standards. In fact, I have even complimented one of the user's contributions. I have only reverted the article when the user mindlessly deletes acceptable, legitimate (unsourced but citable) information or when the user replaces previous information without significant improvements.
• The user seems to be taking it personally that I have high grammatical and informational standards for the article, as is expected for Wikipedia editors. This is also reflected by his constant use of the derogatory term, "newbie", in order to unnecessarily assert his false sense of superiority and belittle other newer, but equally (if not more) competent editors. Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hebron School, Ooty discussion

Hello, I am Amadscientist, a volunteer here on the Dispute resolution Noticeboard. There appears to be "extensive discussion" when you see both the article talkpage and the editor talkpage discussion combined so I am opening the case. Stay civil. No personal attacks and please stay within policy with your arguments. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am posting this comment which will open this case, by stating that you are both edit warring but Alan.Gilfroy has not met the burden of evidence by adding content without a source. If an editor wishes to remove unsourced material, they may remove it. This brought to your attention that your claims were not sourced and claiming that the information is "verifiable" is not enough. It must be unquestionable fact to claim it need not be sourced. Since you do not wish to source this material...please explain (in the discussion section below) why you feel it should be included without sources.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Amadscientist. I apologise for not elaborating on the rationale behind my adding content without sources. When adding content, I had two of Wikipedia's principles close to heart: "Assume good faith" and caution with "Disruptive editing."

Firstly, none of my content is exaggerated or harmful to anyone. My edits are made in good faith, consisting of helpful, factual knowledge of the school and its heritage. In fact, if you look through the article's history, you will find that I have added reliable, reference sources to content which had previously been deleted by the same user. The lack of citations for particular content is only a transitory stage. The content is necessary to build a bigger picture of the page, and to explore the scope for further improvements. I promise to delete the information myself if I fail to find a reliable source.

Of course, I'm aware that the user is entitled to pursue any actions, and is not required to have good faith. I just felt that such an attitude benefits no-one.

Thank you.

Alan.Gilfroy (talk) 05:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

While no one can be forced to assume good faith, not doing so is a sign that there is a potential issue....with the one not AGF. I would also mention that, while you state that you are adding sources I do not see this on the page. You also stated that your edits consist in part with a "factual knowledge of the school and its heritage". We call that Original Research. What you know is not the issue, what can be verified is. --Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Alan....why would you report the filing editor to 3RR today? A look at the page indicates you are both edit warring but neither have crossed the brightline for a 3RR violation. This shows a lack of good faith and puts you in a position of retaliating against the filing editor. I am half inclined to close this as resolved with the opinion that you are simply not correct at all and have placed the article in danger, and have created a chill effect.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Mark Shaw

It is my opinion that the material added by Bob Pond is orthogonal to the article's subject and not appropriate there. I concur with the others who have expressed similar opinions on the article's talk page. I do wish this new editor well in his future Wikipedia experience, however. Mark Shaw (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Hohum

I am amazed that this has gone from a small number of courteous comments on the article talk page to dispute resolution within a matter of hours. Perhaps the filing party could try building consensus instead of immediately attempting administrative action. (Hohum ^@) 23:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Dmol

Gun Safety 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.

Opening comments by Copycat2012

Jordan Belfort page 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.