Misplaced Pages

• Skip to open disputes
• skip to newest thread
• (purge cache)

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

• This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
• We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
• The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
• Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
• Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
• Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

• This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
• For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

• Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
• Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
• Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

• To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
• To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254

The following discussion 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.

• Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

A long term edit war situation involving whether an "under discussion" tag should remain in place in the lead section.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs)
• SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)
• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs)
• Dreadstar (talk · contribs)
• Doc9871 (talk · contribs)
• Newbyguesses (talk · contribs)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs)
• 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs)
• S Marshall (talk · contribs)
• North8000 (talk · contribs) 

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

But they were all notified with broken links from this template-generated message that became obsolete when you retitled the section: – Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

There is discussion of a sort at WT:V, however, there is no discussion that can lead to a solution of this content dispute.

• How do you think we can help?

Content dispute

NewbyG ( talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

At Misplaced Pages:Verifiability discussion

Template:Cue Question: Hello Newbyguesses! After a quick peek at the talk page of the page in question, it does seem there has been a long-running disagreement about the tag. Have you tried an RfC yet to get broader community imput? Lord Roem (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello User:lord Roem. Yes, I think 3 rfc's have been tried. If you were to examine sections suppressed from the talk page, you will see that I tried to initiate a 4th. No user was prepared to take up the discussion. Thank you for your promptitude. I have to go out now, in the RW, cheers, I will return. NewbyG ( talk) 23:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course explaining the overall situation at this page would require a book. But on the very narrow topic, I think that when an RFC was tried there was no consensus to remove it and subsequently there have been more verbal maneuvers for a double standard, to the effect that a consensus is needed to change the status quo on the content and that a consensus is needed to keep the status quo on the tag. On a second note even a briefest look will show that the tag is appropriate.

On the more promising side, my assessment is that there are no big roadblocks to coming up with something that 75% could live with which could result in legitimately remove the tag. I have proposed this several times in the "let's take this somewhere" sections. There has been no opposition to it, but a lack of attention to resolving it. The main distractions have been a group of folks with a warrior mentality with a fixation on removing the tag without resolving it, i.e. steps towards "burying" the discussion/issue rather than resolving it. Second is folks who are working on 8 other non-contentious issues at the same time which de-focuses/gridlocks-with-complexity the effort to resolve the 1-2 contentious issues. Suggestion: come up with a resolution on the 1-2 contentious issues which 75% can live with (VERY doable) and then legitimately remove the tag. North8000 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am the one who removed the tag. Reportedly I was the 8th person who tried do that. I really don't understand what you are trying to archieve. This is one of the most well established and widely accepted policies. It's critical for Misplaced Pages, without it there would be endless dicussions with fanatics, crackpots, delusional, isnane and misinformed people claiming they're right and the sources are wrong, with no way to resolve such disputes. There is no relevant discussion on the talk page. The only "discussion" there is about whether or not should the tag stay, without a single post about how and why should the policy change. It was perfectly appropriate to remove the tag. The fact that Elen of the Roads and S Marshall requested a checkuser on me is completely ridiculous. It's plainly obvious that this is not an honest concern about the policy, but purely disruptive behavior. You and S Marshall are either trolling or unable of clear judgement. Also, both accounts (North8000 and S Marshall) should be investigated for meat/sockpuppetery.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Elen of Roads called this dispute WP:Lame. There is much wisdom in that observation. As I understand it the tag side wants it there and has kept it there for 1/2 a year or more. The no-tag side notes that the discussion tag links to the whole talk page {not to any discussion) where the policy is always under discussion and that the policy is a central pillar, so why have the tag there in perpetuity. Both sides edit war over it constantly. I don't know if neutral eyes can find some middle ground (or negotiate a stop to the lameness) but I think it a distinct service to the community, if you try. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I believe the dispute is WP:LAME and edit warring over it is disrupting the project to make a point. The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue I appreciate all the comments here - I think I understand this dispute much better now. NewbyG, when you have the chance, if you could write a short (but focused) explaination of what your position is? I think responding to Elen's specific critique may be a good place to start. Lord Roem (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. I think that I can agree with what Elen has said, and also most of what North has said. In particular, The current wording (whatever it says) is the currently in-force policy, and the tag does not alter that. The edit raw is lame. The lead section of the policy page will not be resolved while argument continues over what the tag is for. As for edit warring, I have edited there exactly once (1 time). There is little interest from me in following up on whether users have edit warred and disrupted, unless that is the only way to restore order.

My contention is that the tag is now not contributing to an orderly discussion. We can discuss at the page, in perpetuity, no tag is needed on the page. Either discussion happens or not. As North points out ,the fact that there are other discussions going on makes it difficult to sustain a focused discussion. (Of course, I must comment here that any cluefull examination will conclude that the efforts to *retain* the tag for all this time have resulted in inferior discussion, and disruption.) I have not participated in any previous (non-consensus) RFC’s. I am new to this page, and most dismayed at the lack of progress and lack of progress in determining a course of action in a forward direction. That’s all I can say just now, I want to reserve some energy for editing in main space.

Apologies about the broken links which went only to the first couple of users before I tidied that up. NewbyG ( talk) 03:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

The tag has one purpose: to mark the section with a badge of shame until certain conditions are met, supposedly righting an egregious wrong that the community demands to be corrected by any means necessary. The fact that the tag itself now is supposed to be essentially considered part of the wording of this policy is just not right, IMHO. The "new consensus" for this tag to remain here in perpetuity seems to consist of the only two editors who continually reinsert it; even arguing now that it's the "stable version" and that there's actually consensus to keep the tag here forever. Most editors that I have seen comment on the tag either a) want it gone, or b) are ambivalent enough about it not to edit war to keep it in place for all eternity. Doc talk 05:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue If this is right, I think then WP:ANI might be a better place for this (if its a conduct issue of editors reverting to make a point). Lord Roem (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I participated in the big RfC, but I have been uninvolved with this page otherwise. I have scanned the talk page, but I have not had the time to read everything, so forgive me if I suggest something that has already been going on, or if I have got completely the wrong idea. First, I also agree that the edit war over the tag is WP:LAME, but as simply removing the tag has not worked we will have to try something else. I think we need to remove the tag, but to do it in exchange for something, so that everyone can be satisfied that the discussion on the matter has not simply been put on the back burner. Second, the talk page discussion is seriously lacking structure - if we are going to come up with a resolution we will need to be much more efficient than we have been.

I have the rough outline of a plan to deal with this, so please hear me out and see what you think. It would be in two stages. Stage one would be a mediation between the current participants on the talk page, where we work together to create two or three drafts of the policy to present to the community in a new RfC. If I were to mediate this, I would request that the participants agree to the removal of the tag as a condition of the mediation. Other mediators may choose to do things differently. Stage two, as you have probably guessed, would be a large-scale RfC where the community could decide on which of the presented drafts they like, if any. If I were the mediator, I would ask that the tag be reinstated for this stage, as it would be a useful advertisement for the RfC. Again, other mediators may decide that something else is appropriate.

If we bear in mind the feedback we got from the last RfC, then this process should have a good chance of finding consensus. Even if it doesn't, then it would just be a matter of rinsing and repeating until we get one. If we do it this way, then the entire process shouldn't take more than a couple of months, and I would personally be aiming to get through the mediation phase after two weeks and the RfC phase after the standard 30 days, with no drawn-out debates over closing. I'm sure this plan can be refined, and as I haven't been following the debate closely there are bound to be things that I have missed, so any pointers would be most welcome. I'm looking forward to hearing your responses. — Mr. Stradivarius 06:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I haven't been involved specifically in the dispute about the tag, but I am currently involved in content discussion on the talk page. I would also like to be involved in a mediated discussion, which I think is an excellent idea. I must say, though, that I can't agree with 90.179.235.249 's comment: "There is no relevant discussion on the talk page". On the contrary, serious GF points and proposals have been made by both critics and defenders of the current policy page content. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem and Mr. S: So you are aware there was/is an essentially resolved although technically open discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block review please that appears to have precipitated this filing; as you know, administrative action has its limits in settling any content dispute, since that's not its purpose. I would encourage the parties to work with both of you, either on the tag thing, or even larger picture. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the overall situation needs a very good organizer rather than a mediator. Let me do that (wearing a second hat North8000-org that must have zero opinion on the issues) and I bet we could solve the entire issue (which 14 months has made no progress on) in a way that 75% can support and 90% can live with in 6 weeks. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery, sounds like a bad idea. If you've been involved for 14 months!, one would think you would have done so by now. I rather recommend review of this principal recently enunciated by Arbcom:

Sober eyes

2) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 11 to 0, 05:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If folks don't want it, fine. But if you will take a close look at my involvement, you will see that on the main issues my thoughts and participation are very low key and sort of "in the middle". Roughly speaking, my proposals have been to merely explain the contested three words along the lines of what the body of the policy says, and leave them in. Where I come out swinging is when the process and framework for resolving this gets threatened or attacked. One was when the RFC got hijacked, and my opinion was exactly the same as Jimbo's (he did explicitly weigh in on it and said that the first close was a proper close and that what happened next was not right). Second is when people who have an opposing opinion are threatened. (the "looks like you need to be investigated" crap) And third is that the tag is essential to preserve the somewhat middle ground and impetus needed to resolve the issue, given that the wording preferred by the minority (-in-the-big-RFC) is what is currently in there. In short, my "disputes" have been only on things to preserve the process, they have not been on the main issues. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All I want to say on the mediation question is this - Mr. Stradivarius would be a fine mediator to help you all work this out. I would hope you would take his offer seriously. Lord Roem (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, North, hopefully my last comment. All that can be discussed and you can share your view, and they can share their perspective, and at the same time everyone can demonstrate their commitment to the consensus process and moving forward. Last. I promise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've been named here, although I haven't been following what I gather is the recent disagreement over the tag. I've worked in the past to try to help find compromise wording, but more recently I've been tuning out the tl;dr. Some random thoughts: I think the suggested mediation might perhaps be quite helpful. It's a good idea to link the removal of the tag to agreement by all "sides" to a particular plan of action where something is done in return. I also think it would be a splendid idea for everyone involved to just take a six-month break from the whole thing. I heartily agree with Elen about the lameness of it. North, I don't think that most participants would accept you as a neutral party, although I have always found you to be very helpful there (and the IP's suggestion that you and SMarshall are in cahoots is unfounded). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I only offered and thought it might be accepted because the following situation exists: On the main "issue" there is no conflict, just a lack of any organized moving forward. On the real conflict (the tag) the only way to resolve it is to move forward in the area where there is no conflict. So I was only offering to be an organizer, not a mediator, because that area needs an organizer, not a mediator. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and I wasn't finding fault with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the role required is primarily an organizational one. I was using "mediator" as a catch-all term, with the idea that there are as many styles of mediation as there are mediators (and arguably as many as there are mediation cases). This organizational job would be different from content mediation in that there is no need to work out one single version (we can save that for the RfC), and we don't need to stick to a neutral point of view. One thing I think the role will have in common with content mediation, though, is that the participants will need to trust the person in charge. North, if the others involved are willing to trust you to do this, then that's great - let's go with that. If not, then it will probably save a lot of hassle if someone else organizes things. Let's see what a few other editors think about this before making any decisions. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, user:Mr Stradivarius. That approach seems quite acceptable. This matter is getting a bit messy, though. The IP editor above has now been blocked for 48 hours, apparently for the post above. This could seem like an attempt to muzzle discussion. At WP:ANI, there is now a thread, "Request for block review". NewbyG ( talk) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish was mentioned, I believe, because of this edit, and it was indeed a long time ago. So what next? I don't know how carefully anyone else has looked into the history of this tag, but I have done my homework. From its initial announcement it was immediately questioned. When another editor pointed out that "disputed" might not be a good way to tag it (and another editor agreed), this was a point apparently not taken many months later. Initially, other editors helped to link it to a discussion that was live, to justify the tag. No ones's touched that discussion since November. Now, the tag is truly just a black mark. North8000's offer to "organize" this nightmare any further... I personally find to be very "out of touch" with the situation. Doc talk 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Blush, I didn't even remember that. But yes, it's a long time ago, and I have trouble seeing how it would be an issue now, except as a matter of historical "interest". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Constructive discussion is continuing right now at Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability, and North is playing an honorable part in the discussion. However, if a mediator or organizer is to be chosen, I think it should be someone who hasn't been taking part, such as Mr Stradivarius. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc, just clarifying, my offer was to organize a way forward on resolving the reason for the tag, not on the discussions about the tag itself. On the former my views have been sort of low key and near the middle; not so on efforts to remove the tag without resolving its reason. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This issue is and likely will be under discussion for a very long time. The fundamental problem here is that while removing "Not Truth" is preferred by a 2 to 1 majority, the opposers insist on keeping it, claiming previous consensus (way back in 2005 I think and not in a big Misplaced Pages-wide vote). But then, you do have to live with the natural consequences of that, which is continuing discussions. It's a bit like why opposers of gay marriage in California could shut down gay marriages from being performed, but obviously, they could never stop the efforts to legalize this. The monentum is clearly with the people in favor of legalizing gay marriage. Here the momentum is toward getting rid of "Not Truth", Jimbo even favors a much more radical text in which unverifiable knowledge by a single trusted Wikipedian can be included. Count Iblis (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at drafting a mediation page at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability, to show people what a mediated discussion might look like in more detail. If enough of the involved users think this is a good idea, then we can press ahead with it. I have decided to put my money where my mouth is, so my name is now down as the mediator. Of course, it is up to all the parties whether they accept my involvement in this role. Before anyone agrees, I should warn you that I intend to keep things highly structured, and that I would be strict about refactoring/archiving discussions that go off-topic.

Please take a look at the mediation page, and see what you think. In particular, please look at the ground rules and the mediation agenda to get an idea of how the process would work. Also, could everyone take a look at the list of users that I made, add anyone that I have left off, and remove anyone who shouldn't be there? And most importantly, if anyone isn't willing to undergo mediation, then please tell me as soon as possible. This mediation will only gain real legitimacy if all the main users involved are willing to take part. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am boycotting Misplaced Pages for matters unrelated to WP:V. Please proceed without me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. It's not so much a problem if people don't want to take part in the process at all - I'm more worried about people that want to participate in the policy discussion, but object to mediation for whatever reason. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify, is the subject of the mediation the tag itself or resolving the underlying reason for the tag? The former without the latter is just throwing gasoline on the fire. North8000 (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's aimed at resolving the underlying reason for the tag. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear (but obviously not). The idea is to have another large-scale RfC on the "verifiability, not truth" issue, giving the community a few different choices as to how the policy should look. The tagging issue would be taken care of as a by-product of resolving the larger issue. I would stipulate that the parties agree not to edit the tag at all as a condition of accepting mediation - in return the mediation process will give the participants a guarantee of getting the issue resolved in whichever way the community decides. (Of course, this depends on the good-faith participation and cooperation of all the parties.) Did you take a look at the mediation page I drew up? I have laid the process down there in more detail. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did. I guess it's just the inherent complexity that there are two disputes:

1. The underlying one over content, which has basically cooled down into friendly discussions that are going nowhere
2. The recent dispute, which is over efforts to remove the tag without resolving the underlying reason for it.

If you are reaching reach back to include parties that were active in the previous big debate/dispute but now inactive (as you did with SlimVirgin) you are missing about 20 people so some clarification on which it is to be is needed.

After seeing the RFC process being manipulable to being a roadblock to any change, I have some reservations about it being the final test of a proposed change, but that does not appear to be your approach. My gut feel is that I'd agree to abide by those rules, and would support and participate in the mediation/initiative. But this would not preclude friendly/non-controversial efforts to seek a quicker solution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

About the participants - I was hoping I could get your help with that. :) As this mediation is aimed at settling the big debate over "verifiability, not truth", we really need to invite all the people who were originally involved with it. I haven't looked to see exactly who that was - I just took the list of participants in this DRN thread and added Kalidasa777 and Blueboar as I thought they would be interested. If you could add people who I've missed to the MedCab case, I would be very grateful. I will also have a little look through the archives to find people who will likely be interested, but there's always the chance that I might miss some people. I'll also post a notice on WT:V when things are ready to go, so people who are active there now should see that even if they are not included. Of course, people are free to join even if they haven't had any involvement in the discussion so far.

I hear what you are saying about RfCs. In my experience the structure of an RfC is a huge factor in determining the final result, and I think that was definitely the case with the big VNT discussion. In that discussion there was basically one proposal, and two choices - support or oppose. Despite the proposal being very good, the binary nature of the RfC led many to oppose with minor disagreements and many to support with caveats. This blurring of the boundaries was a significant reason for the closing admins deciding there was no consensus, in my opinion. My plan for the new RfC is to give people a few choices, based on the feedback we got from the first time around. If people have more choices it should reduce the number of people who feel the need to give caveats, and therefore it should make it easier to judge consensus.

I agree that not everything needs to be done through an RfC, and I think there are perfectly valid changes that can be made to the policy through normal editing. However, I think that changing the "verifiability, not truth" wording with anything less than a big RfC would run the risk of community backlash considering the number of editors that participated in the first RfC. Maybe the best way to go about things would be to use the proposed RfC to choose the general structure that the policy should take, and to reserve the normal editing process for making more minor adjustments. That's my view on the matter, anyway - let me know if you have more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. I still have hopes for a faster resolution on another track, but I'm in. I think that the best way to look for the others would be those very active on the wp:ver talk page late September, all of October, and beginning of November. North8000 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Cue Just a thought here, guys. I've watched the discussion about VNT both here and on the talk page, and although I have a very definite idea on the subject, I prefer to remain uninvolved for the moment. I know this issue will not be this easily settled, but might it be helpful to introduce a somewhat-informal poll and get input from the community? I know RFC has been tried several times, but it might help if we (on the WP:V talk page) introduced a section entitled "Removal of Under Discussion Tag" and have people weigh in with Support and Oppose and so forth. Let the involved editors voice their opinions first, then try to get others in the community to weigh in. Maybe it sounds a little naive on my part, but I think that might be the easiest way to bring a resolution - or, at the very least, move the discussion forward. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Focusing on the tag rather than the reason for it would be quite a departure. The approach that has been outlined on the mediation page is to resolve the reason for the tag. Trying change that to discussing removing he tag without resolving its reasons would be just gasoline on the fire. Or, more accurately, like relighting the fire and throwing gasoline on it. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since this issue is now being addressed with mediation, would it not be appropriate to close out the discussion here? Steven Zhang 21:54, 1 March 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.

The following discussion 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.

• Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Carlingford Lough uses the Ocean template. The location field is being disputed. Currently the location states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border". The change I would like to make is to change the location to "Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border". This is for 2 reasons - 1) there is a map of Ireland used to point to the location, not a map of UK and Republic of Ireland 2) The article already refers to the location as on the Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border 3) it is more precise. The argument against is that Northern is not considered a country by some users even though the Article refers to Northern Ireland several times and 2) that the current info box does not allow for Northern Ireland in the location field, which isnt true.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bjmullan (talk · contribs)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs)
• Mabuska (talk · contribs)
• Gravyring (talk · contribs)

Bjmullan, has been involved on multiple disputes on this page, and received a block for edit warring.

Shame you never mentioned your own block here as well..... Bjmullan (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Carlingford Lough - Location field}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

This is a long running issue it would appear.

• How do you think we can help?

I think the dispute needs some rational thought involved

Gravyring (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlingford Lough - Location field discussion

I agree with Gravyring's points, and find the opposition to this edit more perplexing by the fact it is adding to the inconsistent manual of style that the opposition of this edit maintains in the article.

1. The articles lede states: "Carlingford Lough (Irish: Loch Cairlinn; Ulster Scots: Carlinford Loch or Cairlinfurd Loch) is a glacial fjord or sea inlet that forms part of the border between Northern Ireland to the north and the Republic of Ireland to the south."
2. The infobox's "Basic Countries" parameter states "Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland"
3. "Location" parameter states "Republic of Ireland - United Kingdom border"

Not very consistent.

The edit would firstly create balance and consistency, and secondly is only an edit that makes it more precise. The parameter in question doesn't even state "country" in it, it states "location" and if Northern Ireland isn't a location, and if it doesn't share a border with the Republic of Ireland then something is seriously amiss.

Mabuska 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the article lead. From the point of view of an uninvolved reader, the more specific reference to Northern Ireland is helpful in placing Carlingford Lough and is consistent with the map shown. UK is obviously a much more general reference. You could qualify the reference to Northern Ireland if needed and/or wanted and say "the Northern Ireland region of the United Kingdom." Again, the specificity of NI is helpful to the reader and would be better, in my opinion, even with the UK qualifier.Coaster92 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

My oppositions to this change is based on the fact that Gravyring wants to removed an article link (Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border) and replace it with simple text. I believe that this article is of benefit to that user and should remain. If we want to consider consistent then we should consider using the two sovereign states in the article rather than a sovereign states and a province of another.Bjmullan (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nowhere in the article that specifies that we are dealing with sovereign states or provinces of another. It is common day practice especially on the island of Ireland for it to be referred as the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. There is nothing against keeping the article link and adding a pipe, or creating a redirect for Northern Ireland - Republic of Ireland border that takes it to Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border. It certainly wouldn't be an easter egg.

Also Bjmullan looking at the Carlingford Lough discussion, the basis of all of your comments is that Northern Ireland isn't a country, which is your prime arguement - not just that Gravyring wants to remove an article link. Mabuska 11:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular mediator/clerk at this noticeboard. Let me note that in studying this, I noted that the wrong infobox was being used and I changed infobox-ocean to infobox-bay. The field in dispute is the same in both infoboxes, and I simply copied over the information from one box to the other without changing it (except to move the coordinates from the text of the article into the infobox, which is the proper place when there is an infobox which allows coords). As for the dispute, it must be noted that except for a couple of changes which were immediately reverted, the location field has consistently remained ] since discussion about this began in November, 2010, and all attempts and requests to change it have been rebuffed, thus indicating that the consensus for the last year and more has been to leave the article as it is. That being the case, the consensus policy says that any change of this text must be supported by consensus and goes on to specifically say that:

Some discussions result in no consensus. "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context. ... In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article.

I see nothing approaching consensus for this change and I am aware of no policy or guideline that would require one outcome or another. Unless, therefore, Gravyring and Mabuska can obtain consensus for this change, it should not be made and the location tag should remain set to ]. If they wish to seek additional editors views, they should consider an RFC (or, perhaps, better, by making a proposal to add a clarification about this at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles, but it does not appear likely that they will be able to obtain consensus through persuading the other editors currently involved in this discussion and I am, therefore, closing this listing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 19:11, 28 February 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.

The following discussion 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.

• Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Terminology is employed which shows a distinct political bias.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• CGAppleby (talk · contribs)
• CGAppleby (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Suicide methods - Starvation}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

The article refers to POWs at Long Kesh. The inmates in question were all convicted by British courts of criminal activity in furtherance of terrorism. However much some people may wish to have these criminals perceived as political prisoners or prisoners of war, this is simply not factual.

CGAppleby (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suicide methods - Starvation 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.

1. The initial removal of the category was part of a large-scale unilateral series of edits. When it became clear that those edits were disputed, rather than taking the time to discuss, the editor re-made the edits that had been reverted, starting an edit war. This is primarily an informational/procedural point, to explain to those uninvolved how this dispute arose
2. The tool as it currently stands is poorly designed. It provides no means of reasonably evaluating the feedback, is open to gaming and misuse (for a clear example, see here), lacks finesse, and does not allow for explanation of ratings. The updated version of the tool will hopefully address this point, which is why I have already stated several times that I will be removing the blacklist when the update is implemented
3. For this article in particular, the data has been ambiguous, and the tool has failed to benefit the article, instead distracting from potential avenues of article improvement
4. Though there are six editors supporting the removal of the category, some of these have provided rationales for removal based on false premises, while others have provided no rationale at all beyond head-counting. Specifically:

1. "looking at the talk page, there are 3 editors suggesting it be removed, one saying it should stay" - WP:NOTAVOTE
2. "I disagree with having it here" - not a rationale for removal
3. "Philippe edited with his official WMF account" - irrelevant. Unless an edit is marked as an office action, edits from WMF accounts are subject to the same standards/policies as those of any editor (evidence)
4. "no reason given for revert. see further note on talk" and similar - irrelevant, as once the edit was disputed the editor should have initiated discussion instead of edit-warring
5. "barring technical or legal reasons, it should remain there" - no evidence provided for this assertion, despite a request for such
6. " The reason of "editorial decision" is not valid for overriding a Foundation initiative" - false. Except in cases of legal issues, the WMF has traditionally allowed for community discretion in implementation of its initiatives and resolutions
7. "I don't see a consensus for it being in the article and I don't think it should be in the article myself, so I removed it" - first part is irrelevant as at that point it was one for, one against; second part is not a valid reason without a rationale
8. "Just stick the widget back in and lets do something more useful" - no rationale provided
9. "More feedback is better than not enough, and not enough is better than no feedback at all" - this is actually a valid rationale, though one that I dispute. I responded to it in detail on the article talk page, but in short: the ambiguity of the feedback provided by the current version of AFT is so pronounced that it's actually less helpful than no feedback at all

The following discussion 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.

• Turks in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

First of all - a small dispute, between me and Hittit, for the using of some claims of a ridiculous Turkish author - Kemal Karpat, for which I am sure that are the point of view of the Turkish historians and are not supported by any not Turkish sources. As the second basic note for editing says "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources.", this have not received support by the external sources and has to be deleted, thats why I was deleting the Turkish historian's claims and Hittit was backing them. So Hittit, you should provide an author which support the Turkish historian's claims, until you don't they should go from the article. I am personally sure that a non-Turkish source supporting Kemal Karpat do not exist, no matter whether you will search in Google Books or in the Library of Alexandria, his claims do not have in common with reality and are simply not supported by anybody. Only the fact that the so called historian is Turkish makes him biased and should be deleted as not any Bulgarian historians are used, not mentionting what he write, ridiculous inflations, augmentations and etc. I like the current way, external authors are used, Mark Levene, R. J. Crampton, Justin McCarthy and Hupchick, although McCarthy and Hupchick have pro-Turkish bias. Crampton's opinion for example completely differs from those of the Turkish historians.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ceco31 (talk · contribs)
• Hittit (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Turks in Bulgaria}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

• How do you think we can help?

Give your third party opinion I suggest or with something else you think would be helpful

Ceco31 (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Turks in Bulgaria 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.

The following discussion 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.

• Iron Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

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

Please check the history page of Iron Guard article. It seems they are agents of influence of certain organizations and they are pushing specific points of view. They are not common editors because they are helping and covering each other's actions. I saw other editors are systematically intimidated by user User:Dahn. Please check their conflicts with other editors.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Dahn (talk · contribs)
• Anonimu (talk · contribs)

I do not want to be involved in such dispute.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Not yet.

• N.B. To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Iron Guard}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

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

Too dangerous. They are threatening other editors for their point of view, imposing censorship.

• How do you think we can help?

It depends if you want or not a censored encyclopedia.

95.25.247.39 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Iron Guard 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.