Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 1

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• This is a specific issue, though within it are more significant issues of a perceived one sided perspective held by all but one (me) of the active editors there. The article itself is a contentious one, nothing will change that. As such it is important that the article represents wiki in a positive light.
  

The one sided perspective referred to is that of the skeptics that effect a large part of what is and has been published in the article, and have left it as a critique of homeopathy from a particular perspective ie grossly imbalanced. As a practising homeopath I have my perspective too. Its not about right and wrong. Obviously there is a big difference between our two takes on homeopathy. I accept that and am very prepared to discuss and work on the article as a whole so it is one that shows both perspectives whilst coming from a neutral place.

I have raised a few topics to discuss and whilst I'm unhappy with the general manner in which all these discussions have gone, the one at Talk:Homeopathy#Arsenic Poisoning is fundamental and clear.

I raised an objection to a sentence in the first paragraph of Homeopathy#Ethics and safety. I suggested a very minor change that would put the sentence into the context that is expressed in the source^[1] ie changing:

Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations.

to

Instances of arsenic poisoning have occurred after use of arsenic-containing homeopathic preparations diluted at the ratio of one in ten or 1X.

As it stands I see it as misleading. Other editors are insistent with it remaining as it is. Discussion of the issues of changing it are ignored except for one; their argument being that its policy to write the conclusion from the source directly into the article. That is all that matters in their expressed opinions.

More recently, the discussion has degenerated, much like other discussion on there.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Myself and User:Guyonthesubway User:AndyTheGrump User:Mann_jess User:JzG User:HandThatFeeds User:Orangemarlin User:Noformation

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• No.

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• We need help and guidance in how to conclude this particular discussion with respect to concerns raised, respect to one another, clarity and process. Guidance on how consensus works in such an editing group as ours. Within this I hope we can look at future topics productively, which with all the best will shall be contentious and many.

Discussion

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

Simply put,

Unfortunately, I don't have access to the full source, but the final sentence to the abstract is clear enough: "Conclusion. Arsenic used therapeutically in homeopathic medicines can cause clinical toxicity if the medications are improperly used". I fail to see why the use of '1X' or similar homepathic jargon is necessary here. Our article stated that such accidental poisonings "may be due to improper preparation or intentional low dilution", which seems to cover just the situation described in the abstract. Arsenic poisoning can have serious effects, as the abstract describes, and I see no reason to attempt to mask this with questionable equivocation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment- I'm closing this discussion, after having read the discussion on the talk page. This issue has been clearly discussed on the talk page, with discussions continuing, but this is not the forum to get more input on a dispute if it's already being discussed, and especially not if you're taking it here because users on the other discussion pages simply don't agree with you. Please continue discussing the issues on the talk page.

Resolution

Discussion closed. Please discuss this issue on the article talk page, if you don't agree with the consensus formed there, you can discuss it there, but here is not the place to

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• This dispute is about the newly-added
  talk · contribs) has also chipped in with a comment saying that the issue of intent wasn't seen as irrelevant at the similar pages kike, nigger, and yankee
  .

• Help to mediate an acceptable solution between Dwarm12345's position and the position Medeis and I have agreed on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The wording that was proposed to be added here is not clear. You can't use one source that states something, and use it to claim that is the universal opinion. It might be better to state, as a rough example, instead of "Despite the word's negative connotations, its use is not usually intended as malicious", something like "according to (list source name here), the use of the term, while having negative connotations, is not generally intended to be malicious" or something like that. Play around with the wording, but it's more important, in this situation, to state that it's a viewpoint, but a viewpoint of that source, and not a universal one.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, that sounds like a sensible thing to do. Both of those sources were compiled using corpus data, so they should be pretty accurate, but there's always the issue of the corpus being biased, and as Medeis was pointing out, spoken language versus written language, etc. So I shall change the wording to better reflect where it came from. I am not 100% sure that this will satisfy Dwarm12345, however, as they have been saying that any information about the intent of the speaker is irrelevant, but I shall give it a try and see what they think of it. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, see how that goes. Best,

^{The clock is ticking....}

12:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Stradivarius, your new wording is more accurate. However I still have serious doubts about the necessity of discussions on intents without contextual or historic substances for the same reasons I had given earlier. Dwarm12345 (talk) 03:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Give it a go. Sometimes a solution that all can be perfectly happy with is difficult or impossible. Try working up a compromise, sometimes you have to give a little to get a little. All the best.

^{The clock is ticking....}

03:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, does that mean that if there was some sort of context that you would be happy with its inclusion? What kind of context do you mean? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again.

^{The clock is ticking....}

10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• A user is attempting to force {{Album ratings}} into this and related articles. Personally I don't think its useful to have this template in the articles, I didn't mind so much when the ratings were included in the main infobox as they were fairly unobtrusive, but as a separate floating box they're just fluff, and ugly fluff at that. Add to that the fact that I regularly have to revert the additions by others of trivial information (non-notable cover versions, non-appearances on stamps), and you can see what a fight it is to keep these articles from degenerating into a mess. I don't feel that the ratings template is that useful since music appraisal is primarily subjective; practically all the ratings are attributed to organisations, and not people. The most significant contemporary reviews are already included as prose, in the relevant section. I've offered to add to that prose more modern reviews, so readers can gauge the album's continuing popularity, but my voice seems to pale into insignificance when compared with otherwise uninvolved editors who feel that just because a template exists, it should be forced into all articles, regardless of the fact that they've had absolutely no interest in that article before now. I'd provide a list of diffs but there's no need, the edit-warring is immediately obvious from the article's recent history. Parrot of Doom 17:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Two people, me, and an anon IP editing under three addresses: [8], [9], [10]

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• See Professional Reviews section, and WT:ALBUM]. The Pink Floyd wikiproject is dead.

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• An informed consensus on this matter would be helpful, but whose opinion counts - the editor who's almost single-handedly improved most Pink Floyd album articles from start-class to GA/FA, and who continues to ensure their standards remain high, or an anon IP with no declared interest?

Discussion

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

relevant pages:

WP:Disinfoboxes can be Useful (essay)

1. Whether or not to include album ratings: Album ratings that are sourced to notable publications are appropriate in a reception/review section. They should be cited inline. A representative sample should be used; not every rating is equally relevant or necessary. Reviews convey important information about what the critical response to the album was. Although music preference is subjective, music ratings have been published and become facts, official records of how a work was seen by critics. That record, appropriately summarized or selected from, is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia.
2. Whether to include an infobox: Infoxboxes present information in a visual-summary style. They are often helpful. They are not required. The focus should be on this infobox's strengths and weaknesses in this context. If this particular article has a general problem with excessive illustrations and other 'fluff' it has only indirect bearing on this case and must be carefully handled by looking at the article as a whole. Also, editors who work on infoboxes should not assume they will be included everywhere and that consensus is needed at the particular article.
3. Whether the album ratings infobox is ugly or should be deleted: This infobox is useful and it exists. The remaining focus should be on whether this particular infobox could a) be improved and b) belongs in the article. I don't see a clear reason aesthetically or by policy why it should be excluded. It is relevant and conveys information effectively. The argument that readers could just go to the text for a summary belies the entire purpose and existence of infoboxes: they box info in a convenient package. Infoboxes can make an article useful, accessible, and attractive. Useful and accessible are more important than attractive though. Thinking something is 'ugly' is not a sound basis for deciding against its use; aesthetics are subjective and secondary to content. On that point, perhaps editors would like to spend a little time improving the template itself.
4. How to interact with other editors, including ips, to reach consensus:. It's a common mistake to think that because someone is (or thinks they are) right that they can stop being civil. Please remember that all editors, including ips, and including those who disagree with you, deserve respect and the right to an opinion. We are equals here in that regard, new comers and unregistered editors, and heavy contributors alike. Also, waiting for a page to be locked because you prefer the current version, or because ips are the other party in a dispute, is not an okay way to go about things. Long time contributors to an article have a valued role but not a privileged one. Nobody owns articles. Finally, all editors should seek consensus rather than edit warring. What's most important is that editors start speaking to eachother with respect and make good compromises towards consensus. That consensus must take into account all relevant voices, not voices weighted by their prior contributions to the article. Consensus is still needed to include the infobox but it must be based on the right reasons. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you seem to have missed the point. This infobox is not mandatory, and I do not believe it is needed. Another user thinks it is, and we are therefore edit-warring. I came here to ask how to proceed, so what should I do? This is dispute resolution, right? How do two users with completely opposing views resolve this dispute? Or should I just keep reverting until someone starts kicking arses? Parrot of Doom 22:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

When two can agree open an RFC or Third Opinion.

talk

) 23:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree here, seeking a

^{The clock is ticking....}

00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

PoD, I was trying to structure and guide your discussion with other editors, not render a verdict. It would be easy to say, a) it's a featured article and doesn't need a random ugly template laying out random ratings or b) the the template looks fine and is useful and should be included... but that's not our role, really. My interest is in removing "it's ugly" from the discussion and improving dialogue with ip editors who deserve a say. I also think you need to reevaluate your opposition to this template since it seems to be informed by aspects of the article or its editing history which are only tangential and circumstantial. Off hand, I think the template could be included and it's not ugly. But I'd rather you get a more official third opinion. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again.

^{The clock is ticking....}

10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

• I believe certain statements made within the article on Thomas Jefferson regarding his relationship with Sally Hemings and alleged paternity of her children and other related articles are improper within the scope of Wikipedia, that they misrepresent cited sources and overstep with definitive statements that aren't warranted.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Various editors. See the section at the Thomas Jefferson talk page.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Argued about it on the talk page. I've been accused of agenda pushing, they're being stubborn about including these definitive statements.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• Does Wikipedia policy support these unqualified statements? I don't think it does.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

There has long been speculation regarding whether Thomas Jefferson fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings. There has been research that indicates that Jefferson was in proximity to Sally Hemings at times when she became pregnant. There is limited DNA evidence from modern descendants that indicates that someone from the Jefferson family did father the children. However the DNA evidence does not conclusively implicate Thomas Jefferson. There were other Jefferson males who could have theoretically and plausibly fathered the children. The issue is further muddied by the fact that Jefferson never publicly addressed the matter, nor did Sally Hemings.

While there has been extensive research that shows compelling circumstantial evidence, because of the lack of direct DNA evidence which would have to come from Thomas Jefferson's remains, it all stops short of being able to state with the level of certainty possible with available technology that Thomas Jefferson was the father. The conclusions are qualified - evidence strongly suggests, seems likely, etc. While researchers have been lauded for their efforts, they can't create definitive evidence which doesn't exist.

My issue is that wording within the article makes definitive statements that Jefferson was the father without qualification. I've objected to this because I believe it's overstepping. My understanding is that article content should state what the sources say in correct context, taking care to not take it upon oneself to assert definitive conclusions outside the scope of the sources. I also have issue with how some of the content is framed. The material at the Thomas Jefferson Foundation site also uses qualified language - "most likely" the father, etc. Curiously, the TJF site also includes a Thomas Woodson as a purported Jefferson offspring (with extensive qualifiers) though there is no evidence even of a connection to Sally Hemmings beyond that of "family oral history"...??

Further as a result of this disagreement, other articles such as the article on Madison Hemings, one of the offspring purported to have been fathered by Jefferson have now been altered to include such definitive, uqualified statements - "...Madison Hemings, born James Madison Hemings (18 January 1805 – 28 November 1877), was the son of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson..." Followed by a statement regarding such DNA evidence that exists. As previously outlined I believe this to be improper as I believe it is in any of the related articles. It also seems out of balance with other statements (also found in the Thomas Jefferson article) such as "It is now widely believed that Jefferson had a 38-year relationship with Sally Hemings and fathered her six children." "Widely believed" along with other qualified language is a more proper reflection of the research, but to simply say "he is" is not.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

I'm closing this discussion, after reading the discussion on the talk page, I don't think that any input from this board is required. It's an issue that has clear consensus on the talk page, that reliable sources state that Thomas Jefferson is the father. Given the fact that he died over 175 years ago, direct DNA evidence is not going to be available, therefore we report what reliable sources state, and that's what's been done. I'd like to remind everyone that this noticeboard is not the place to bring a dispute if it's been under discussion, and as a result of the discussion you are the only editor who has a different opinion. This is used to resolve content disputes, and this one is already resolved.

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• General edits and requests for additional citations on the Union University article have been met with stiff resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_University&diff=435900658&oldid=435826316

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Detsom Sweetmoose6 69.167.204.2

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Posted on Talk:Union_University explaining my position.

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• Provide us with guidance.

Discussion

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

A past edit on this article link resulted in someone in the public relations department of Union University calling the public relations director my former alma mater, Lambuth University, inquiring about me (if I was a student there, etc). I was informed about this by the Dead of Students of Lambuth University at a homecoming event. I believe this has something to do with the editor 69.167.204.2. This editor also referenced my real name on Talk:Union_University. [11]

I have suppressed those edits. If it happens again email User:Oversight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All past edits aside, the article really is lacking in citations. I added a few and requested more, but they were reverted and I was accused of vandalism by Sweetmoose6. Detsom (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a look at the discussion on the talk page, and it is very brief. Try discussing the issue further on the talk page, and see what you can come up with. Discussing issues on the article talk page is the first step in resolving Wikipedia disputes, so if you try that for a while and get no-where, you can look at other options.

^{The clock is ticking....}

12:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edit was rather provocative,

Christianism is a highly charged concept, "ideology of the radical right"; they doubtless see themselves as good Christians whose faith informs any political activity. User:Fred Bauder Talk

20:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

With respect to references or lack of them, there seem to be almost no third party references, other than to the tornado. This is rather typical, as there may not be many or very good third party sources available in the case of many schools. My thought is that the requests for references should remain, but material from the University's history of itself should be freely used, although not for controversial issues or for claims of excellence. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again.

^{The clock is ticking....}

10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?
• On the article War Rape certain users keep adding Sri Lanka to the page despite the lack of sources to back it up. The sources tend to be pro-Tamil sources or articles that say that unverifed footage seemingly shows the aftermath of what could be rape. Amnesty INternational for example does not mention Sri Lanka here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4078677.stm BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC) (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• HudsonBreeze
• Hillcountries

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• I've reverted the edits and specified why in the edit summary and talk page.

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• Halt HudsonBreeze, etc. from editing these pages.

Discussion

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

• WP:WEIGHT
• Articles should tread carefully involving controversial areas such as this. Sources are required. Sources which have a bias may be used but it is appropriate to use in-text attribution explaining where an opinion is coming from. In general, we describe debates, so you might say, The leading Tamil newspaper says War Rape is occurring; Amnesty International and other human rights agencies have not added Sri Lanka to their list of War Rape incidents.
• Try to draft a balanced description which covers both sides in proportion to the prevalence, quality, and neutrality of the involved sources.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Archived as stale. Feel free to re-add discussion if things pick up again.

^{The clock is ticking....}

10:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• HillCountries, HudsonBreeze and me

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Yes, through discussion.

• What can we do to help resolve this issue?

• Halt HudsonBreeze, Hillcountries, etc. from editing this article.

Discussion

Discussion about the issues listed above take place here. Remember to keep discussions calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand. The term "credible evidence" is being inserted into the the beginning of the article in bold although the UN report does not use that term. Further the opinion of UK foreign minister seems irrelevant in the opening. Also unreliable and POV links to the site warwithoutwitness.com are being inserted by the two individuals mentioned above. And a neutral edit of the video section is being reverted. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Allegations found credible by the Panel" section heading in the Executive Summary, page 4 of the report. Not proven, but credible. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Burt, the Foreign Service officer appears to be speaking for the British government, "The recent UN panel of experts' report, this documentary and previously authenticated Channel 4 footage constitute convincing evidence of violations of international humanitarian and human rights law." This information does not appear to be at all unreliable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The opinion of the British government doesn't warrant going in the opening. And he has no authority over Sri Lanka unlike the UN. BlueLotusLK (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding such matters the British government has considerable credibility, as does the Guardian. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Links to the photos and videos are somewhat troublesome, despite their apparent authenticity, clearly a site with genuine grievances they are highly motivated to present. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times article, which User:BlueLotusLK removed, has this lead, "A United Nations panel investigating allegations of war crimes by Sri Lankan troops at the end of the bloody battle against Tamil rebels in May 2009 found credible evidence that government soldiers made civilians a target, shelled hospitals and attacked aid workers, according to an unauthorized copy of the panel’s report." A generally reliable source which clearly supports the language in the lead. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The piece in International Business Times cannot support inclusion of such conclusions as "It seems that it has, under the eyes of the International community, also been used as a cover up for a conflict that was nothing more than a racist war." That is biased, ignoring, or minimizing, the nature of the Tamil Tigers. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Fred, thanks your for your help. I would like to close this discussion if possible. I'm going to move away from editing these pages. BlueLotusLK (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Per comments above, closing this discussion as dispute has been resolved.

^{The clock is ticking....}

07:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• There is a dispute over User:Maher-shalal-hashbaz's use of CSD tags. See [18], [19], and [20]. Also, see Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page and talk page history. Basically, I believe Maher-shalal-hashbaz over-tags for speedy deletion, especially when patrolling new pages, and Maher-shalal-hashbaz believes he can tag based on a "gut feeling", and that if others want to rescue the article, they can.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk · contribs)
• Singularity42 (talk · contribs)

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.

• We have discussed this on Maher-shalal-hashbaz's talk page. Rather than respond to my concerns about the effect of what he is doing on new editors, Maher-shalal-hashbaz indicated he will continue doing what he has been doing.

• How do you think we can help?

• Some general input about whether this type of CSD tagging and new page patrolling is appropriate. This is clearly a dispute between myself and Maher-shalal-hashbaz over the appropriate use of CSD tags, so some outside input will be helpful. Singularity42 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• Comment from involved editor (and initiator of this thread). I believe when new page patrolling, there's a lot that can be easily tagged for speedy deletion: "Bob is the best guy in the world", "The band has self-published its first album, and will soon be known by the entire world", "The company will help you solve your IT problems", etc. But some authors write articles that clearly need a little bit more review before tagging. These are usually lengthier articles, or articles where the claim of importance cannot be dismissed out of hand. Usually a quick Google check will so;ve it one way or another. By tagging these articles for deletion based on a gut feeling, it can
  bite the newbies, especially ones who have actually put together a semi-decent article but are now told it will soon be deleted for not complying with our policies. I would like Maher-shalal-hashbaz to err on the side of not nominating rather than err on the side of nominating (as he put it), and realize that there are enough editors doing new page patrol that there is no need to rush into a decision of whether to tag an article for deletion. Singularity42 (talk
  ) 12:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• NPPer Observation. As a fellow NPPer, I'm looking at their work and discovereing that their quality of tagging with the various toolset is significantly out of line with community consensus. I reccomend that Maher consider reading
  WP:NPP, and their associated talk pages. The prefered method if you're going to be NPPing, is to first fix any problems you can immediateley, then do a maintanance template tagging, then if the article is still helpless use the PROD mechanisims. CSDs are only supposed to be used for very narrow and very specific definitions. David Dyment was an article that Maher tagged for CSD:A7, when clearly the subject has established enough of a presence to qualify under the GNG and as such I declined the A7. Should this activity continue, I would reccomend that the user be progressiveley be sanctioned for improper use of tools and editing against community consensus Hasteur (talk
  ) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment New page patrol is one of the most thankless, necessary, contentious, and potentially harmful aspects of the site. It has to be done, yet it is constructed in such a way that it bothers, confuses, and alienates new editors. Patrollers should make a reasonable effort to minimize the negative effect that NPP has. One of the clear ways to do that is to ask a few basic questions when they review a page. 1) Does it have a reasonable chance of being improved? 2) Was a minimal effort made to follow notability, sourcing, and formatting standards? 3) Would tagging it for CSD unnecessarily turn off a potential good editor. Relying on a "gut feeling" without asking those questions is a bad idea and NPP patrollers should find a way to internalize those into an efficient system. Where there are borderline cases, NPP patrollers should not assume that 'someone will save the article if they care enough' as often the process of contesting a CSD is unfamiliar and new editors are not prepared to do so. There is an easy alternative which is marking articles with PRODs instead. This should be used in all borderline cases. There is nothing lost by letting an article sit for 7 days, and if it's not an unambiguous CSD candidate that is what policy directs. Save CSD for the worst cases and use PROD for the rest. Since this dispute involves one editor's behavior, an RfC/U might be useful later. I don't suspsect the community would support a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later approach here, as much as they sympathize with the demands and crap-ful-ness of NPP.Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I had considered an RfC/U, but besides there needs to be two editors who have tried to resolve it first as a minimum requirement (which is not the case here), I agree that NPP is a thankless job, and I don't want to penalize Maher-shalal-hashbaz for spending his time doing it. I'm still trying to figure out what this noticeboard is for, but based on the description it seemed to me a useful way to gain additional input and come up with a resolution that might show Maher-shalal-hashbaz that his use of CSDs needs to change (or, alternatively, that Maher-shalal-hashbaz is right and I am incorrect). Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

User has gone idle, and has not done anything since this DRN was opened. If it becomes a problem again, please feel free to file a RfC/U and to encourage them to slow down on their tagging. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• I request that someone who is better versed in Wikipaedia rules look at the discussion page and the exchanges by me and Philip Cross. I fear that both of us have conflicts of interest which prevent consensus. Hitherto I have mostly looked at historical pages where differences over content are less vulnerable to politically loaded editing.

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Keith-264 and Philip Cross.

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.

• I suggested arbitration which PC agreed to.

• How do you think we can help?

• Someone better versed in Wiki policies can scrutinise our comments and refer us to them. Keith-264 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• I've read the article and the discussion pages. In general, the article is written a bit too much from an insider perspective, sounding like ML is explaining itself rather than Wikipedia giving a neutral overview. The thinly veiled pro ML slant reflect that people who like the subject wrote the bulk of the article. The criticism section is an improvement on that, but it still has a tone of support and case-making in the main section. The talkpage discussion slightly confuses notable figures and RS. Someone whose opinions are notable for political commentary, such as Monbiot, may be relevant for inclusion even if they are not a reliable source for hard news. RS is always applied in context and is not a blanket determination of someone's accuracy. We can always quote and attribute relevant, notable figures' opinions whether they are right nor not (see
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Are there any specific issues you are getting hung up on? Ocaasi ^{t | c}
  19:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Wiki policies, I like much of what The Daves write at ML and so have a conflict of interest and I don't trust PC's comments as I think that he has a reciprocal axe to grind. I don't want to abandon the page and I don't want to get into a mud-slinging competition.Keith-264 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Start by reading

WP:CONSENSUS, since it's the base of our editor interactions. The talk page looked unremarkable and a bit foggy but not like you were getting stuck. The article shows some signs of imperfect construction, but I don't see a major dispute or any fundamental policy misinterpretations. Just because you like what The Daves writes, doesn't mean you have a true conflict of interest. That's more for someone whose personal life, ideology, or fortune is at risk based on the outcome of an article. You just may have a bias, but that's fine. Editors can have a bias as long as the writing comes out straight. Working with editors who have opposing ideologies is one way to make that happen. Stay civil, use the talk page for contentious changes, continue to rephrase and structure opinions so that they are described from a neutral point of view. Come back if you run into a specific issue or would like a third opinion on anything. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c}

21:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

Issue now seems to be resolved. Closing.

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• I added several edits to the George RR Martin wiki page which were all removed by the editor Amalthea. The comments from Amalthea were as follows: "(rv: Have a grudge, do we? Fan forum link is not relevant enough (especially in comparison), your other points aren't sourced (although I read the "shit out of luck" comment somewhere)/not relevant. Whole thing needs reorganizing, TTTT.) (undo)"

As I pointed out in my response to Amalthea on his talk page, I do not consider it to be a grudge to point out that it is Martin's policy to censor fan comments that may be considered critical. Readers should know this prior to trying to post at one of his sites. I sourced this with a reference to a recent New Yorker article which can be viewed online at [21]. I also added a comment about the "Is Winter Coming?" website which has become the alternative for many fans who have pro/con views regarding Martin and his books. I added this site [22] to the external link section as a balance to other sites in the section which do practice censorship.

Lastly, I added a comment that Martin has said that he will not allow any other writer to complete the series in the event that he dies before it is completed. In the past, this was an ongoing question among fans. Now, it has recently been confirmed by Martin himself in the New Yorker article. I think that people (especially those who have been introduced to the "A Song of Ice and Fire" series by the HBO show) should know this before they decide whether or not to invest their time and money in reading these books. DavidG3276 (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• Who is involved in the dispute? (Make sure you let them know you have posted here)

• Amalthea (talk · contribs)

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken? Note: You must have at least discussed the issue on a talk page.

• Originally, I said that Amalthea had not responded but as Hasteur points out later I was wrong about that. The comments were moved to the talk page for the article. I apologize for my mistake and the wrong impression it gave others of Amalthea. I am deeply embarassed.

• How do you think we can help?

Since we will be attempting to resolve this on the talk page, there is no need to continue this process.

Discussion

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

• The comments were not removed. The comments were moved to the GRRM article's Talk page, where the discussion needs to take place. This is a content question and not a individual editor question. Taking a look at the items you added I'm agreeing with Amalthea that the commentary doesn't really belong. It's interesting, but until it gets picked up by someone else I think that this is just a bit of
  WP:UNDUE weight on the criticisim. Hasteur (talk
  ) 15:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hasteur is correct and I was wrong. I am very sorry for that. I will be updating my earlier comments to reflect that. We will attempt to resolve this now on the talk page instead of needing the services of this resolution board. DavidG3276 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolution

As this issue will hopefully be resolved on the talk page for the article, there is now no need for assistance. My apologies for having taken up the time of others.

Sometimes it's a second set of eyes to look at a problem is all that it needs. Hasteur (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Discussion moved from main page.

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here? (Please provide a few diffs if this is regarding conduct and ensure that you have discussed the issues on a talk page first.)

• I've added unreliable tags on a citation that was continually inserted; however,
  WP:3O joined and confirmed the source is unreliable. Exampleshere and here. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk
  08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• User:Misconceptions2
• And myself: User:Adamrce ~ AdvertAdam ^talk08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

• Tons of previous discussions & advice on articles' talkpages, leveled reminders and warnings on his talkpage with detailed discriptions from the
  user warning project, and (regarding this last incidence) suggesting him to join the article's discussion two times on his talkpage (which he recently deleted--history proves) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk
  08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• The editor stresses and ignores any suggestions from me, so a direct message to his talkpage might help, hopefully.
• My main concern, which held me from getting a mediator after the
  WP:3O, is to find suggestions of how to deal with this editor in the future, as we're in debate since I started editing. I actually stopped my actual contribution, as discussions were always going on-and-on at each topic (trying to clean his generalizing edits, based on unreliable/uncredible sources). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk
  08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Most scholars (in secondary sources) agree with the religious scripture (primary sources) that Zakat (Muslim-tax) is taken from the rich of the community and given to the poor of the community. Mr.
  WP:3Oadded
  5 more reliable examples of Zakat to non-Muslims. He still removed my unreliable tags, as linked above.
  
• The other problem is his accusations, considering that a comment by any editor on me means a conviction. He also barely comments on my edits, but mostly on me on articles' talkpages like this and this, and my-own talkpage like this and this. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Here's another incident where he admits that one source might not be reliable, but he added it again just because he thinks that the second source is reliable. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I keep explaining to him that an unreliable source should stay out-of-Wiki (no-matter-what). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 10:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources are critical here, and from observing the discussions I've seen, there are plenty that state that Zakat is distributed to both muslims and non-muslims. The other thing to remember here is to not give sources undue weight. If the source they are adding cannot be verified, and it is in dispute, which it seems to be given the number of references presenting an alternative viewpoint (Zakat distributed to muslims & non-muslims) then it should probably be removed. The larger issue here is conduct, yourself and another editor have refuted their point about Zakat only being distributed to Muslims by citing several reliable sources. If issues were to continue, a

You got straight to the point, thanks. I've explained

WP:LEAD, ...etc, at least ten times. I'm seriously looking for a solution, because my contribution fell from 80% articles to only 5% now (personal estimate). I'm not sure if I should keep the community busy by bringing each topic to reliable source incident & meditations (when each article has 5-6 disputes by the same 3 editors). But if no solution is found here, I guess I have no choice :( ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note, this issue and others involving reliable sources should be brought to
  the reliable sources noticeboard first. If you have future issues with a source, that is the place to go. Ocaasi ^{t| c}
  10:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The book was not published by Mizaan Book, that is wrong (it was published by a religious institution called MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN), please see the Zakat article (the issue which the user mentions has already been resolved), and i did say Zakat is for both Muslims and non muslims, here (which the user was complaining about). He opened this dispute about 3 days after the dispute was fixed !

Secondly, i have many problems with this user, regarding whitewashing Islam articles, i have already opened a dispute against him which never got solved, here (as admins weren't willing to comment on the controvertible Jihad article dispute, i say they weren't willing to comment because i talk to them live on IRC and they said so). And many other users have opened disputes against him for constantly leaving warnings on there page and on mine here , and he tried to get the admin to support his edits on

Then user added 2 unreliable sources tag here , i then added a third source from William Montegoary Watt, and the user stopped his game. User has been accused by doc tropics of twisting the introduction of the

Why can't you stop accusing me of whitewashing, and start commenting on my edits instead. Yes, "they were offensive in nature" is a great example you brung up. You're still adding-back the same self-published material, but the phrasing was kind-of fixed. A source says that the Muslim raids were offensive, and you insisted that the Muslims were offensive in nature (by a self-published source). That's a huge manipulation, but I'm glad it was fixed (after looong effort). Following is replies on your same sequence:

• NO, the issue was not solved. "By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim" is not a proper phrasing according to
  WP:3O
  in the talkpage, the source is automatically unreliable.
• You were again told to stop you accusations just above (not by me). It was never resolved because it was biased, sorry. Accusations from 3 editors (out of 100s I dealt with on higher-traffic articles) don't make me convicted. Also, Islamic Terrorism wen way out-of-topic, but it did come back to my suggestion at the end. I'll be fixing the article based on that within a couple days (10 days with no objection is enough).
• The article is still full of unreliable sources. When a source is pointed unreliable, don't put it back just becaue you found another source. Remove the unreliable and only add the addition source to be verified. You confirmed on my talkpage that the other source might be unreliable, and you're still adding it till now.
• "Doc tropics" is not the founder of Wikipedia, he's the third user that made false accusation on me (and couldn't get any support on the incident). He failed to even protect his opinion that my source is unreliable. I just gave that article some time, and I am coming back. I haven't stopped "my game", as you called it. Please stop taking my statements out-of-context. What I said is with reliable sources, if you ever read the whole sentence. You still added the same unreliable (self-published) sources, which will be removed when I send it to
  the reliable sources noticeboard. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk
  19:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, but i have provided some proof for my accusations haven't i. where i proved that you said you are on wikipedia to explain the peaceful truth about islam? as my justification for calling you a "defend of the truth". Or am i misinterpreting what you meant by that, you already accused me of taking those comments out of context (what more context is needed when you said it on wiki project Islam)? Anyway, lets see you rephrase the sentence "By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim" , which the source says. Second this was added by DavidElah, so please get him involved, see his side of the story. Thirdly, again i would like to tell you that i have said that some scholars believe Zakat can be given to poor non-muslims who have a potential to convert. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• That's quite enough, both of you. Keep this focused on the content issues at hand. Further comments containing personal attacks or mudslinging will be removed. If there are some sources that state that Zakat is only for Muslims, but a majority of sources that state it is also for non-Muslims, then the content of the article should read as such ie "(First group of sources here ie "Scholars from Harvard") believe that Zakat is for both muslims and non-muslims, however (source here ie Religious cleric) believe that Zakat is only intended for muslims. I don't know. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to write something up properly, but it seems to me that the supermajority of sources here state that Zakat is used both for Muslims and non-muslims, with a minority stating otherwise. This is what should go into the article. It would be giving undue weight to the minority of sources to state that Zakat is only for muslims first in the article, given this fact. Play around with the wording, but the key fact here is giving undue weight to sources based on personal opinions. Personal opinions should never get in the way on Wikipedia. Play it by the rules, work together on coming up with a compromise and you both should be fine. But don't be at each others throats over it.
  ^{The clock is ticking....}
  21:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, thanks for the feedback. But i want to point out that I DID NOT ADD the sentence By consensus of the jurists, as a general rule, the recipient must be a Muslim . I only reverted AdamRce edits (and tags) claiming it was an unreliable source, because Mizaan Bank published it, when they did not! It was published by a religious institution called MAKTABA MAARIFUL QURAN. I added the part that Zakat can be giving to non muslims as per the 4th category, to help convert them. In summary, the dispute was mainly between DavidElah and AdamRce, i only got involved later --Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry. General suggestion needed: when a user denies to join the discussion, is the formal "mediation" the best place to go, or do I just take the list of sources to
  WP:RSN? I am a WikiWizard, but I don't have enough spells to fix everything at once :p. There's other content on the same article that needs opinions, as I backed-off just to avoid edit-warring. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk
  23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I consider this issue resolved, as i added that Zakat can be given to non muslims (which AdamRce was complaining about)--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it was not resolved. My previous edit solved the phrasing, based on consensus in the talkpage, stating "As a general rule, the recipient must be a person who does not possess wealth equal to or in excess of a prescribed threshold amount".

• The revert, stating "can be given to non-Muslims" is not enough, favoring a weak source over the majority. If you insist in containing Muslims and non-Muslims, then I changed to balance it to the following: "By consensus of the
  jurists
  , the recipient can be a Muslim or non-Muslim within most of the categories, but some scholars say non-Muslims may only receive Zakat as payment to get them to help stop hostile public campaigns against Muslims and as per the "4th category" to pay potential converts to Islam.".
• If we keep the weaker sources, then we'll need to add 3-4 other stronger sources to balance (from the talkpage). To avoid it, I removed all sources, and added a message linking to the talkpage instead. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

How do you know what a weaker or stronger source is?Let me guess, if it fits your point of view, it is a strong source? or maybe if you think its a strong source,then its a strong source. Please wait till DavidElah responds to your rephrasing of his edit--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked your new phrasing for which you did not cite any sources. I removed the part where you wrote "within most categories" here, add proper references instead of saying that "list of sources are in the talk page"! Any content with no source will be challenged and remvoed as per Wiki policy. In fact if that sentence you added stays unsourced i will remove it!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's many issues involved, including what you mentioned (just-kidding). Most important, the "Maktaba Maariful Quran" source is self-published; as the publisher is owned and managed by "Mufti
  WP:RSN
  .
• David asked for a
  third opinion
  and he didn't object his decision in the talkpage.
• Removing "within most categories" lacks the first section of any value at-all, when you read the full sentence. I reverted your removal and added two reliable balanced sources (from the talkpage) with the content. I also have reliable sources to make it "within all categories", but I avoided that to not keep this discussion loooooonger. It looks good this way, as it answers your last concerns (here). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)